Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Henderson v. Gunthergreen2 sentences2026Id. 35 Those circumstances are “(1) the special relationship exception; and (2) the danger creation exception.” Id. ¶ 64 For the state-created danger exception, the state may be “liable under § 1983 for failing to protect an individual from harm inflicted by a third party where the [s]tate has created the danger that ultimately causes the harm or the [s]tate has increased the individual’s vulnerability to the harm.” Id. at 1156. 2026Id. 35 Those circumstances are “(1) the special relationship exception; and (2) the danger creation exception.” Id. ¶ 64 For the state-created danger exception, the state may be “liable under § 1983 for failing to protect an individual from harm inflicted by a third party where the [s]tate has created the danger that ultimately causes the harm or the [s]tate has increased the individual’s vulnerability to the harm.” Id. at 1156. | 1 | 3 |
Uhlrig v. Hardergreen2 sentences2015And this special relationship doctrine applies ‘“when the state assumes control over an individual sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual.’†J.W. v. Utah , 647 F.3d 1006, 1011 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Uhlrig v. Harder , 64 F.3d 567, 572 (10th Cir. 1995)). ¶21       Children in the custody of the state have a constitutional right to be reasonably safe from harm. 1997The Tenth Circuit held that the special relationship exception was “inapplicable to the instant case because [the decedent] was simply an employee of the state ... and an employment relationship is consensual in nature.” Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 . | 1 | 2 |
Castillo v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026Id.; see Castillo v. People, 2018 CO 62 , ¶ 38 n.5; Sanchez v. People, 820 P.2d 1103, 1109 (Colo. 1991); Case v. People, 774 P.2d 866, 869-70 (Colo. 1989). ¶ 68 This reasoning applies to the special relationship defense at issue in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026Id.; see Castillo v. People, 2018 CO 62 , ¶ 38 n.5; Sanchez v. People, 820 P.2d 1103, 1109 (Colo. 1991); Case v. People, 774 P.2d 866, 869-70 (Colo. 1989). ¶ 68 This reasoning applies to the special relationship defense at issue in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Case v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026Id.; see Castillo v. People, 2018 CO 62 , ¶ 38 n.5; Sanchez v. People, 820 P.2d 1103, 1109 (Colo. 1991); Case v. People, 774 P.2d 866, 869-70 (Colo. 1989). ¶ 68 This reasoning applies to the special relationship defense at issue in this case. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Finkgreen1 sentence2026See Fink, 574 P.2d at 83 (a defendant may present evidence that he was acting in self-defense despite not receiving a self-defense affirmative defense instruction). | 1 | 1 |
J.W. v. Utahgreen1 sentence2015And this special relationship doctrine applies ‘“when the state assumes control over an individual sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual.’†J.W. v. Utah , 647 F.3d 1006, 1011 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Uhlrig v. Harder , 64 F.3d 567, 572 (10th Cir. 1995)). ¶21       Children in the custody of the state have a constitutional right to be reasonably safe from harm. | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Lovingreen1 sentence1997See Wooten v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 696, 700 (11th Cir.) (no special relationship between state and child where child was in mother's physical custody and child did not rely solely on state for his physical needs and safety), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 379 , 133 L.Ed.2d 302 (1995); Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1303 (5th Cir.1995) (no special relationship between state and student at state school for the deaf); Wright v. Lovin, 32 F.3d 538, 541 (11th Cir.1994) (consensual relationship of school to school children does not constitute a special relationship). *1158 We conclude that C | 1 | 1 |
Joseph Walton, as Next Friend of Christopher Walton, a Minor v. Alma Alexander, Alma Alexandergreen1 sentence1997See Wooten v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 696, 700 (11th Cir.) (no special relationship between state and child where child was in mother's physical custody and child did not rely solely on state for his physical needs and safety), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 379 , 133 L.Ed.2d 302 (1995); Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1303 (5th Cir.1995) (no special relationship between state and student at state school for the deaf); Wright v. Lovin, 32 F.3d 538, 541 (11th Cir.1994) (consensual relationship of school to school children does not constitute a special relationship). *1158 We conclude that C | 1 | 1 |
Nos. 93-9158, 93-9324green1 sentence1997See Wooten v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 696, 700 (11th Cir.) (no special relationship between state and child where child was in mother's physical custody and child did not rely solely on state for his physical needs and safety), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 379 , 133 L.Ed.2d 302 (1995); Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1303 (5th Cir.1995) (no special relationship between state and student at state school for the deaf); Wright v. Lovin, 32 F.3d 538, 541 (11th Cir.1994) (consensual relationship of school to school children does not constitute a special relationship). *1158 We conclude that C | 1 | 1 |
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. McNeelygreen2 sentences1997See Wooten v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 696, 700 (11th Cir.) (no special relationship between state and child where child was in mother's physical custody and child did not rely solely on state for his physical needs and safety), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 379 , 133 L.Ed.2d 302 (1995); Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1303 (5th Cir.1995) (no special relationship between state and student at state school for the deaf); Wright v. Lovin, 32 F.3d 538, 541 (11th Cir.1994) (consensual relationship of school to school children does not constitute a special relationship). *1158 We conclude that C 1997See Wooten v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 696, 700 (11th Cir.) (no special relationship between state and child where child was in mother's physical custody and child did not rely solely on state for his physical needs and safety), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 379 , 133 L.Ed.2d 302 (1995); Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1303 (5th Cir.1995) (no special relationship between state and student at state school for the deaf); Wright v. Lovin, 32 F.3d 538, 541 (11th Cir.1994) (consensual relationship of school to school children does not constitute a special relationship). *1158 We conclude that C | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Department Of Human Services
green
1 sentence2015Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Servs. , 959 F.2d 883 , 893 (10th Cir. 1992). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
green
1 sentence2015Id. ; Schwartz , 702 F.3d at 579-80 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
The Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen
green
2 sentences2015Estate of B.I.C. , 710 F.3d at 1173 . ¶20       As pertinent here, the special relationship exception provides that state officials may be liable for the criminal acts of private parties when the state has assumed a special relationship with and control over the victim. 2015Id. ; Schwartz , 702 F.3d at 579-80 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
green
2 sentences1997In DeShaney , the Supreme Court recognized the special relationship exception only in the narrow context of “incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty,” which leaves an individual without the ability to provide for basic needs. 12 DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200 , 109 S.Ct. at 1005-06 . 1997In DeShaney , the Supreme Court recognized the special relationship exception only in the narrow context of “incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty,” which leaves an individual without the ability to provide for basic needs. 12 DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200 , 109 S.Ct. at 1005-06 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.