Range v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis
763 F.3d 573 · 2014
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These are subjective standards, to be sure, but they make clear that the 'shocks the conscience' standard is not a font of tort law, but is instead a way to conceptualize the sort of egregious behavior that rises to the level of a substantive due process violation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Guertin v. State · Elfers v. Varnau“[t]he bookends [of which] present the easier cases.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“So, it is the entirety of the situation that must be assessed, including a defendant’s awareness of the kind and degree of risk, and of the right threatened. For example, a prison official who has time to appreciate a known risk to an inmate’s medical needs can shock the conscience by failing to provide medical care. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 850-51 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 . A police officer who has five hours to deliberate the known risks of bodily injury to hostages shocks the conscience by making a tactical decision to use tear gas and forced entry. Ewolski, 287 F.3d at 511-12 . And an officer who has an opportunity to deliberate the risk to life shocks the conscience by placing a drunk woman in the passenger seat of a car with a drunk driver who is known to be violent. Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 862-63, 870 (6th Cir.1997). In each case, the risk, i.e. the probability of harm, was substantial, the harm at issue was “serious,” and there was evidence from which a jury could find that the defendants knew of the scope and substance of the risk. Thus, the type of harm, the level of risk of the harm occurring, and the time available to consider the risk of harm are all necessary factors in determining whether an official was deliberately indifferent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Guertin v. State · Elfers v. Varnau
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.