Bowman v. Brashear

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “ [according to the illustrations in the Restatement, a warrantless search of a home qualifies as a physical intrusion into a place where the plaintiff has secluded himself” (citing Restatement § 652B)
• relying on a Third Circuit decision from 1989 “predicting” how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would define the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.”’
• \it is well established that the discretionary function exception does not apply to constitutional violations\
• \[I]t is well established that the discretionary function exception does not apply to constitutional violations.\
• “While intentional torts are generally not actionable under the FTCA, the intentional tort proviso provides that false imprisonment and assault and battery are actionable if committed by an ‘investigative or law enforcement officer.’” (citation omitted).

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).