Hollingsworth v. Hill

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a parent “[u]ndoubtedly” has the right to assert constitutional rights “on behalf of their children” (emphasis omitted)
• finding that police department’s custom of seeking legal advice from district attorney was not the cause of officer’s improper enforcement of a child protective order
• explaining that under the Fourteenth Amendment, “officials may temporarily deprive a parent of custody without” judicial authorization “in emergency circumstances which pose an immediate threat to the safety of a child”
• finding Sheriff violated mother’s clearly established rights when children removed without notice or hearing because no emergency existed
• granting qualified immunity to a sheriff and sheriff’s deputy for alleged unlawful seizure of children from a hotel room during service of a protective order
• “The execution of the custom itself did not inflict Hollingsworth’s injury….Rather, Hill’s independent decision to remove Ms. Hollingsworth’s children inflicted her injury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).