Christiansen v. City of Tulsa

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that police officers’ actions of quarantining a suicidal man in his apartment and using a “flexible baton” while attempting to rescue him fell short of any deliberate action placing him unreasonably at risk of harm
• concluding that the police had no special relationship with a quarantined individual, not because the police had not taken the individual into custody, but because the policy had not sufficiently restrained the individual’s freedom to leave the area or make calls
• concluding that the police had no special relationship with a quarantined individual, not because the police had not taken the individual into custody, but because the policy had not sufficiently restrained the individual’s freedom to leave the area or make calls
• framing the standard in the state-created danger context as whether the risk was “obvious or known”
• noting that the State’s “affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament ... but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf’
• noting that the State’s “affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament ... but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).