Kneipp v. Tedder
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
95 F.3d 1199 (1996)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Samantha and Joseph Kneipp (plaintiffs) were walking home when they were stopped by police officers (defendants), including Officer Wesley Tedder. Samantha was visibly intoxicated; she smelled of urine and needed her husband’s help to walk. An expert witness later estimated that her blood alcohol level was around 0.25 percent, which would have incapacitated Samantha’s muscle coordination and other cognitive functions. Tedder detained Samantha but allowed Joseph to go home to relieve his babysitter. Instead of bringing Samantha to the hospital or the police station, Tedder left Samantha to walk home by herself. Samantha was later found in a cold embankment near her house with permanent brain damage. Tedder later claimed he let Samantha walk home with her husband, but this was refuted by several witnesses. The Kneipps sued the officers and the city of Philadelphia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officers were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm to Samantha and violated her right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment, and the Kneipps appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mansmann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.