Danese v. Asman’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.2d 1239 · 1989
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Russo v. City of Cincinnati (1992), Carolyn Comstock v. Norris McCrary v. S. Thyagarajan and David Howell (2001)
52 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Estelle v. Gamble · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Bell v. Wolfish
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he rights the district court cites as having been clearly established were not particularized rights as required by Anderson and, thus, were not sufficient to deny the defendants qualified immunity. The “right” that is truly at issue here is the right of a detainee to be screened correctly for suicidal tendencies and the right to have steps taken which would have prevented suicide. The general right to medical care, for example, is not sufficient to require a police officer to have known that he had to determine that Danese was seriously contemplating suicide and stop him from following through.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he right in question ... cannot be simply a generalized right, like the right to due process. It must be clearly established in a “particularized” sense, so that “the contours of the right” are clear enough for any reasonable official in the defendants’ position to know that what the official is doing violates that right. This particularity requirement does not mean that the very action in question has been held unlawful; it does mean, though, that in light of the preexisting law, the illegality of the action must be apparent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[0]ur eases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.