Thomas S. v. Flaherty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “substantial departure from accepted professional judgment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 782 F. Supp. 502 - United States v. State of Or. · 164 F. Supp. 2d 591 - Williams v. Wasserman

2. “The district court’s decree does not run afoul of the Eleventh Amendment. The court did not award monetary damages to any class member in contravention of the principles explained in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). The court did not order injunctive relief simply to compensate for past violations of a patient’s constitutional rights. Thus, if a patient had been previously subjected to unconstitutional conditions but presently was not affected by past unconstitutional practices, the Secretary was not required to provide remedial treatment. The court’s decree only provides prospective relief to class members who were in a hospital on the date the class was certified or who subsequently were admitted to a hospital. The decree addresses the present needs of the patients. Class members discharged from the hospitals while this action was pending are entitled, under the decree, to the constitutional protection delineated in Youngberg in accordance with the standards adopted by the Supreme Court. If the present conditions under which class members live do not meet constitutional requirements as explained in Youngberg , or if a patient is presently suffering from unconstitutional conditions imposed while in the hospital, the decree provides appropriate prospective relief. The decree fully comports with the remedy approved in [Milliken] and Clark v. Cohen, 794 F.2d 79 (3d Cir.1986).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson ex rel. Hinn v. North Carolina

3. “DeShaney does not support the proposition that persons who were in state custody at the time of class certification and later released have no right to a remedy.... Here all members of the class were institutionalized patients on the date of certification .... The district court sought to remedy the harm suffered by class members whether they remained in the institution or had been discharged. The object of the court’s order is twofold: to ameliorate the lingering effects, if any, of improper treatment; and to remedy inappropriate community placements, if any.... We believe that the state’s duty to render the kind of treatment prescribed by Youngberg is not discharged by simply releasing a class member from the institution ivhere he or she had been hospitalized. Otherwise the state could unilaterally avoid the obligations imposed by Youngberg and defeat the claims of class members by terminating their institutional care while the ease was pending.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 834 F. Supp. 757 - Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital