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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Department.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Department Anchor | green | “to establish a violation of substantive due process rights, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the state action was 'so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.” | 14 |
| 2 | Mcclary v. O'hare | green | “the doctrine of substantive due process protects the individual against certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them,” | 6 |
| 3 | Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Department | green | “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.