Nix v. Franklin County School District

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that deliberate indifference was insufficient to constitute a due-process violation in a non-custodial setting
• explaining that the “somewhat nebulous” “shock the conscience” test has “taken on different meanings in different cases”
• observing that courts must remain vigilant “to prevent the Fourteenth Amendment from becoming a surrogate for conventional tort principles”
• stating that “courts have not allowed due-process liability for deliberate indifference, and, moreover, will only allow recovery for intentional conduct under limited circumstances”
• explaining that “specifically, in a classroom setting, courts have not allowed due-process liability for deliberate indifference, and, moreover will only allow recovery for intentional conduct under limited circumstances”
• finding that a high school science teacher’s conduct didn’t “shock the conscience,” even though the teacher brought in a live wire, which—when the teacher looked away—killed one of the students

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).