D., WINFORD T., PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a district court was not required to consider allegations raised for the first time in response to a Rule 12(c) motion where the relevant document was not attached to plaintiffs’ briefings
• listing the factors relevant in determining whether an agency is an arm of the state
• explaining that the Sixth Circuit’s various tests for “assessing whether a private entity is a state actor . . . boil down to [this] core question” (quoting Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001))
• considering exhibits attached to the motion “so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central to the claims contained therein.”
• analyzing governmental immunity under the fourth prong of Odom for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
• affirming dismissal when complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to satisfy all elements of gross negligence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).