Laurie Range v. Kenneth Douglas

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the “‘shocks the conscience’ standard sets a high bar”
• addressing only the “substantive component[]” because “Plaintiffs raise only a substantive due process claim on appeal”
• noting the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
• pointing out that at least one “sister circuit” has found that such a right is “fundamental,” but not holding that such is the case in this Circuit
• “Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a jury could find much to condemn in the conduct of Kersker and Dr. Cleveland, perhaps even recklessness.”
• observing in relation to claim for immunity under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2744, that “[s]ince 2003, Ohio statutory immunity has provided complete immunity from suit, which means there is interlocutory jurisdiction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).