James Richard Erdman v. Cochise County, Arizona and City of Douglas, Arizona

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that an arrest and detention pursuant to a facially valid warrant is not a constitutional violation
• stating that generally Rule 68 offers are analyzed in “the same manner as any contract,” but that Rule 68 offers “differ from contracts with respect to attorney fees”—i.e., a waiver or limitation of attorney fees in a Rule 68 offer must be “clear and unambiguous”
• “The . . . arrest alone was not a constitutional violation because it was pursuant to a facially valid bench warrant.”
• “The . . . arrest alone was not a constitutional violation because it was pursuant to a 11 facially valid bench warrant.”
• detention pursuant to a facially valid bench warrant not a constitutional violation
• offers of judgment are construed against the drafter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).