Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the distinction between standing and class certification is not \always easy to discern\
• explaining that under Arizona law, a county sheriff’s office lacks separate legal status from the county and cannot be sued in its own name
• affirming finding that defendants’ “custom, policy and practice of racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers” violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights (internal quotations omitted)
• affirming, in part, injunction against sheriff’s office pattern and practice of searching plaintiffs based on - 18 - immigration status
• substituting Maricopa County 16 as a party in lieu of improperly named defendant, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
• discussing how the standing requirement is addressed in relation to the named plaintiff and whether the named plaintiff may bring claims on behalf of a putative class is considered under a Rule 23(a) analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).