Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 867 F. Supp. 2d 588 - Dennis v. DeJong

867 F. Supp. 2d 588 - Dennis v. DeJong’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
January 2020
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Count I: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims against defendant Delaware County for deputizing an employee of Delaware County Children and Youth Services to act as a deputy clerk of court for all dependency matters in place of the county’s Office of Judicial Support; Count II: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims against CYS employees, defendants Wertz, McGettigan, and Giancristiforo, for an alleged delay in filing an ex parte memorandum with the court concerning termination of plaintiff parents’ parental rights; Count IV: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against defendant Delaware County for the alleged policy of delaying the scheduling of dependency hearings; Count VI: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against defendant Delaware County for CYS’s reliance on defendant Dr. DeJong’s investigations, reports and testimony; Count VII: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against defendant Dr. DeJong for multiple misrepresentations of medical findings to support false accusations of child abuse and related actions; Count VIII: plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 , 1983, 1985 against defendants Dr. DeJong, Wertz, McGettigan and Speedling for conspiring to deprive plaintiffs of their equal protection and due process rights based on gender bias and racial animus in their entirety; Count IX: plaintiffs’ Fou”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A dependent child, in relevant part, is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals. A determination that there is a lack of proper parental care or control may be based upon evidence of conduct by the parent, guardian or other custodian that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, including evidence of the parent’s, guardian’s or other custodian’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Count II: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims against defendant Delaware County; Count III: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against defendants Germond and Delaware County; Count IV: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against defendant McGettigan; and Count V: plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against defendant Delaware County.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.