Tenth Circuit· 8/30/1995

Uhlrig v. Harder

Citations

64 F.3d 567
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24442

How courts have described this case

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

where third party, not a state actor, causes the injury complained of, plaintiff must allege a constitutionally cognizable danger
“[T]he standard for judging a substantive due process claim is whether the challenged government action would ‘shock the conscience’ of federal judges.’”
“[T]he standard for judging a substantive due process claim is whether the challenged government action would ‘shock the conscience’ of federal judges.’”
“[S]tate actors are generally only liable under the Due Process Clause for their own acts and not for private violence.”
Eighth Amendment requires “a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking.”
“[T]he standard for judging a substantive due process claim is whether the challenged government action would ‘shock the conscience of federal judges.’” (quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 126 (1992))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

73 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases with this name

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.