Miller v. City of Philadelphia

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that to state a substantive due process claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege conduct by a government actor that “shocks the conscience”
• recognizing that to state a substantive due process claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege conduct by a government actor that “shocks the conscience”
• recognizing that to state a substantive due process claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege conduct by a government actor that “shocks the conscience”
• explaining that allegations of negligence or simple error do not state a valid substantive due process claim
• stating that “[t]he proper approach” when a qualified immunity defense is raised “is to ascertain whether a constitutional violation has been alleged before determining if qualified immunity is available”
• listing the standards as intent to cause harm, gross negligence or arbitrariness that shocks the conscience, and deliberate indifference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).