Cobb v. Department of Labor & Industries

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that juvenile plaintiffs had standing to seek an injunction against a policy of stopping and interrogating juveniles at family court
• concluding that “there is a likelihood of recurring injury because the [challenged] activities are authorized by a written memorandum of understanding between the [city’s counsel] and the Police Commissioner”
• finding the plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief because they had demonstrated both that “the challenged interrogation methods ... [were] officially endorsed policies” and that, the plaintiffs were .“likely to suffer future interrogations” by the defendants
• relying on New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 654 (1984) (a defendant does not have a constitutional right to receive Miranda warnings because warnings are only a procedural safeguard designed to protect a person's right against self-incrimination)
• relying on New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 654 (1984) (a defendant does not have a constitutional right to receive Miranda warnings because warnings are only a procedural safeguard designed to protect a person’s right against self-incrimination)
• “A plaintiff seeking injunctive or declaratory relief cannot rely on past injury to satisfy the injury requirement but must show a likelihood that he or she will be injured in the future.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).