Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • D
  • DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social…DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services

United States Supreme Court
489 U.S. 189 (1989)


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services

Facts

DeShaney (plaintiff) was a young boy who was severely beaten and permanently injured by his father, with whom he lived. The Winnebago County Department of Social Services (defendant) received complaints that DeShaney was being abused by his father. After a lengthy period of observation in which visits were made to DeShaney’s home and he was hospitalized for mysterious injuries, Winnebago had reason to believe DeShaney was being abused, but nonetheless did not act to remove him from his father’s custody. DeShaney sued Winnebago County under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in federal district court claiming that Winnebago’s failure to act deprived him of his liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to Winnebago, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)

Dissent (Brennan, J.)

Dissent (Blackmun, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Has the sole purpose of 42 USC 1983 been decided upon, to protect its citizens by Due Process and strictly adhering to the wording of the Rule or to literally protect citizens from all forms of abuse in general?

There was conflicting reasoning behind the assenting and dessinting opinions in this matter. But what was officially decided on 42 USC 1983? It seems to me that the purpose of the clause was to protect the US citizens of any abuse that would be inflicted by any other US citizen. That would include US government official acting under the color of law, as they are natural citizens themselves. In cases involving abuse, neglect is considered to be a form of abuse and is subject for scrutiny. How dies this not apply if the neglect is the product of the government? Does this mean then that neglect should be stricken from the child maltreatment act? This very issue is one concedes with to the argument of whether the government should be held accountable to the same laws as its citizens, that no one has absolute immunity, or not to be. Am i missing something?

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.