Jones v. City of Cincinnati

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that treating an attachment “as part of a pleading does not mean that we assume everything [defendants] said in [the attachment] is true”
• holding that attachment of a transcript of defendant’s unilateral statements to complaint did not mean that the plaintiff adopted those statements but instead shows that the defendant made such statements
• holding that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity when they failed to remove the suspect’s handcuffs, which delayed the administration of care, and failed to provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation or other aid
• holding that a court may consider public records without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion, but may take judicial notice only of facts which are not subject to reasonable dispute
• holding that when a plaintiff attaches documents to her complaint containing statements by the defendant that conflict with the plaintiff’s allegations, the plaintiff is not required to adopt every word in the documents as true
• explaining that treating an exhibit as part of the 3 pleading does not require accepting the contents of the exhibit as true

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).