Lombardi v. Whitman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that officials' allegedly false reassurances as to air safety in lower Manhattan after 9/11 attack did not shock the conscience
• holding that federal agency officials making false or misleading statements about the air quality at ground zero was deliberate indifference which shocked the conscience
• holding that EPA’s false statements about the air quality in lower Manhattan after the September 11 attacks were justified by the competing governmental purposes present after the attacks
• providing that the “special relationship” exception “arise[s] ordinarily if a government actor has assumed an obligation to protect an individual by restricting the individual’s freedom in some manner, as by imprisonment”
• requiring proof of conscience-shocking behavior when plaintiffs alleged government made false assurances that workplace would be safe, although plaintiffs were not in custody
• analyzing substantive due process claim in part by recognizing the alleged wrongs \were committed in aid of competing public goals that were not insubstantial\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).