Kevin Harer v. Shane Casey

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that Defendant officers “allow[ed] well over 20 eyewitnesses to leave the scene without getting out of their squad car or taking a single name”
• granting dismissal of access-to- court claim in part because plaintiffs failed to identify remedy that alleged police cover-up put out of reach
• “[R]ipeness implicates the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution . . . .”
• “To determine whether a plaintiff has meaningful and effective access to court, we require the plaintiff to identify: (1) a nonfrivolous, underlying claim; (2) the official acts frustrating the litigation; and (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).