Krowczyk v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “police officers ha[ve] a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness’ report”
• holding that 54(b) certification did not have \jurisdictional defect\ merely because district court did not include specific findings regarding appropriateness of certification
• holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration because the plaintiffs “presented no arguments which the court had not already considered and rejected.”
• holding that a warrant was required to conduct body cavity searches
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration, whether brought under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), because the plaintiffs “presented no arguments which the court had not already considered and rejected.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).