Dayson v. Lanier

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing state-created danger claims that lacked any evidence that state actor “by his alleged non-responsiveness, communicated, even implicitly,” to private actors
• finding no state-created danger in the absence of a school district’s explicit or implicit communication of an official sanction of the bullying or harassment
• noting that Second Circuit emphasizes that “[o]nly an affirmative act can amount to a violation of substantive due process, because Due Process is phrased as a limitation of the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security”
• “The consensus among the courts is that the „special relationship‟ doctrine does not apply to the school setting.”
• the state created danger doctrine requires showing of relationship between State and plaintiffs assailant, and not simply a relationship between State and individual attacked
• the state created danger doctrine requires showing of relationship between State and plaintiffs assailant, and not simply a relationship between State and individual attacked

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).