Guertin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
912 F.3d 907 · 2019
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Logan Vanderhoef v. Maurice Dixon (2019), Dawn Crawford v. John Tilley (2021)
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]nvoluntarily subjecting nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known therapeutic value-often under false pretenses and with deceptive practices hiding the nature of the interference-is a classic example of invading the core of the bodily integrity protection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“an action's unlawfulness can be 'clearly established' from direct holdings, from specific examples describing certain conduct as prohibited, or from the general reasoning that a court employs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without 'due process of law,' but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.... Its purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.