In the Interest Of: L. D., a Child (Father)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff was not \entitled to declaratory relief because he allege[d] only past conduct and [did] not seek to prevent an ongoing or future violation of federal law\
• holding that plaintiff was not entitled to declaratory relief against judicial officer where plaintiff “alleges only past conduct and does not seek to prevent an ongoing or future violation of federal law”
• holding that plaintiff was not entitled to declaratory relief against judicial officer where plaintiff “alleges only past conduct and does not seek to prevent an ongoing or future violation of federal law”
• holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to declaratory relief because he alleged “only past conduct and does not seek to prevent an ongoing or future violation of federal law” (citing Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698 (3d Cir. 1996))
• explaining that a judge’s decision to grant a recusal motion did not deprive the judge of judicial immunity for subsequent actions performed in his judicial capacity
• holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to declaratory relief because he alleged “only past conduct and does not seek to prevent an ongoing or future violation of federal law” (relying on Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698 (3d Cir. 1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).