Skip to main content
Third Circuit· 4/19/2017

Philip Wharton v. Carl Danberg

Citations

  • 854 F.3d 234
  • 2017 WL 1394791
  • 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6716

How courts have described this case

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

  • affirming district court’s dismissal of substantive due process claims that were parallel to Eighth Amendment claims under the more-specific-provision rule
  • “[S]peculation and conjecture may not defeat a motion for summary judgment[.]” (alterations in original) (quoting Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 228 (3d Cir. 2009))
  • “Suits against high-level government officials must satisfy the general requirements for supervisory liability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jordan, Greenaway, Rendell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.