Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. White

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs’ allegations of deliberate indifference to pleas for protection were sufficient to support a claim for ITED under federal notice pleadings
• declining to grant motion to dismiss based on Section 2-201 because an “important decision,” like barring all of the minors’ tort claims, deserves a fully developed factual record
• Such an \important decision\ as whether Section 2-201 applies to bar a minor's tort claims \deserves a fully developed factual record.\
• Such an “important decision” as whether Section 2-201 applies to bar a minor’s tort claims “deserves a fully developed factual record.”
• Such an “important decision” as whether Section 2-201 applies to bar a minor’s tort claims “deserves a fully developed factual record.”
• not applying section 2-201 immunity on a motion to dismiss where questions remained about whether all the actions were discretionary, or some were ministerial and there was no evidence about what competing interests were balanced

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).