Connection lost
Server error
Samantha Kneipp, an Incompetent Person by Ronald A. Cusack, Sr. Rosanne M. Cusack, Individually and as Guardians Alexander August Dalmisano, a Minor v. Wesley Tedder, Individually and in His Official Capacity John Doe and Others, Individually and in Their Official Capacities City of Philadelphia Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Police stopped a severely intoxicated woman and her husband, allowed the husband to leave, and then sent the woman off alone. She suffered severe injuries. The court held this could constitute a “state-created danger,” violating her substantive due process rights under § 1983.
Legal Significance: This case formally adopted the “state-created danger” theory in the Third Circuit as an exception to the DeShaney rule, establishing that state actors can be liable under § 1983 for affirmatively creating or increasing a risk of harm to an individual.
Samantha Kneipp, an Incompetent Person by Ronald A. Cusack, Sr. Rosanne M. Cusack, Individually and as Guardians Alexander August Dalmisano, a Minor v. Wesley Tedder, Individually and in His Official Capacity John Doe and Others, Individually and in Their Official Capacities City of Philadelphia Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Samantha Kneipp and her husband, Joseph, were walking home late on a cold night. Samantha was visibly and severely intoxicated, requiring her husband’s assistance to walk. Philadelphia police officers, including Officer Tedder, stopped the couple one-third of a block from their apartment. Joseph informed the officers he needed to get home to their child. After an officer gave him permission, Joseph left, assuming the police would care for his wife. The officers then sent Samantha home unescorted. She was later found unconscious at the bottom of an embankment, having fallen and suffered hypothermia, which resulted in permanent, severe brain damage. Kneipp’s guardians filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the officers and the City of Philadelphia. They alleged the officers’ affirmative acts violated Kneipp’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by creating a danger and making her more vulnerable to harm after interfering with her private source of aid. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did police officers who intervened in a private citizen’s effort to assist a severely intoxicated person, and then abandoned that person in a vulnerable state, create a danger sufficient to establish a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Yes. The court reversed summary judgment for the officers, holding that a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat c
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did police officers who intervened in a private citizen’s effort to assist a severely intoxicated person, and then abandoned that person in a vulnerable state, create a danger sufficient to establish a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Conclusion
This decision established the state-created danger theory as a viable path to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation
Legal Rule
A plaintiff may establish a § 1983 claim under the state-created danger Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est labo
Legal Analysis
The court began by acknowledging the general rule from DeShaney v. Winnebago Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Third Circuit formally adopts the state-created danger theory as a