Charles v. Orange Cnty.’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.3d 73 · 2019
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hether the state knew or should have known of the substantial risk of harm to the 3 detainee is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including 4 inference from circumstantial evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen pretrial detainees challenge their conditions of confinement, we must consider whether there has been a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. E. D. v. Sharkey“[d]epending on their severity, psychiatric or psychological conditions can present serious medical needs in light of our contemporary standards.”
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.