Do Mun Kim v. Multnomah County

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that parole officers had \taken charge\ of the parolees they supervised, and that a physical custodial relationship was not required for liability to attach under section 319
• finding that the duty of a parole officer under § 319 only arises in a custodial relationship, not a supervisory one, and, thus, a supervising officer did not have sufficient control of a parolee to raise a duty
• “[i]t was not within [the probation officer’s] power to revoke Lawrence’s probation and, therefore, she did not have the ability to control his conduct by preventing his release”
• the risk of liability under section 319 attaches to the actual custodian

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).