8 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 44 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 Women's Medical Professional Corporation Martin Haskell, M.D. v. J. Nick Baird, M.D., Director of Ohio Department of Health.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Women's Medical Professional Corporation Martin Haskell, M.D. v. J. Nick Baird, M.D., Director of Ohio Department of Health Anchor | green | “in order to establish a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) he had a life, liberty, or property interest protected by the due process clause; (2) he was deprived of this protected interest; and (3) the state did not afford him adequate procedural rights …” | 13 |
| 2 | Russell Durham v. Mahdee Nu'man Roy Hill James Burke Ricky Rhodes, Donnie Glover George Nichols Becky Ahlers Nasiruddin Siddiqui Farahieh Rabbani | green | “a right is not considered clearly established unless it has been authoritatively decided by the united states supreme court, the court of appeals, or the highest court of the state in which the alleged constitutional violation occurred.” | 7 |
| 3 | Deeg v. City of Detroit | green | “it seems to be settled by the great weight of authority that the unlawful and intentional mutilation of a dead body gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of the person or persons entitled to the possession, control, and burial of such body.” | 5 |
| 4 | Albrecht v. Treon | green | “the next of kin of a decedent upon whom an autopsy has been performed do not have a protected right under ohio law in the decedent's tissues, organs, blood, or other body parts that have been removed and retained by the coroner for forensic examination and testing.” | 5 |
| 5 | Whaley v. County Of Tuscola | green | “the next-of-kin have a legitimate claim of entitlement and thus a property interest in a dead relative's body, including the eyes.” | 4 |
| 6 | Drogosch v. Metcalf | green | “a law enforcement officer's key defense to a 1983 action is encapsulated in the concept of qualified immunity.” | 4 |
| 7 | Carney v. Knollwood Cemetery Assn. | green | “the rights to possess, to use, to exclude, to profit, and to dispose.” | 3 |
| 8 | Blake v. Wright | green | “we review a district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo.” | 3 |
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.