|
|
|
Use this tool to learn about websites, specifically the one you just entered.
If you find some aspect of it inappropriate it is not our fault.
If you are the owner of this website: yes we are a real search engine, we do have a real web crawler called FyberSpider and you can block it if you feel the urge.
We are in the process of updating this tool. Until we are done just use our search results to check the inclusion status of your site.
Submit your site to major search engines within 48 hours.
Find out if your site has been cataloged by top search engines for only $8.99.
Below you will see site info taken directly from the URL you entered in real time. This is also known as our URL Breakdown tool and can be used independently of our site info tool.
deshaney
This is just a sample of the content found on this website. Please visit the website to read the entire page.
"
U.S. Supreme Court
DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.,
489 U.S. 189 (1989)
DESHANEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL. v. WINNEBAGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 87-154.
Argued November 2, 1988 Decided February 22, 1989
Petitioner is a child who was subjected to a series of beatings by his
father, with whom he lived.
Respondents, a county department of social services and several of
its social workers, received
complaints that petitioner was being abused by his father and took
various steps to protect him; they did
not, however, act to remove petitioner from his father's custody. Petitioner's
father finally beat him so
severely that he suffered permanent brain damage and was rendered profoundly
retarded. Petitioner
and his mother sued respondents under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that
respondents had deprived
petitioner of his liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation
of his rights under the substantive
component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing
to intervene to protect him
against his father's violence. The District Court granted summary judgment
for respondents, and the
Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
Respondents' failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection
against his father's violence did not
violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process
Clause. Pp. 194-203.
(a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence
generally does not constitute a
violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no
duty on the State to provide
members of the general public with adequate protective services. The
Clause is phrased as a limitation
on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal
levels of safety and security; while it
forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and
property without du"
....
read entire page
|
Links to Pages on the Same Domain Name
|
|
