Rammage v. Kendall

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in a case concerning allegations of unlawful search, false arrest, and excessive force, “[p]laintiffs have alleged no such duty that the [d]efendant Police Officers specifically owed them, and therefore they fail to state a claim under the direct duty theory”
• finding that strip search of plaintiff without threat of harm cannot establish outrageous conduct
• determining that plaintiffs’ Monell claim failed partially because plaintiffs did not “allege any facts to state a plausible claim that ‘the challenged action was directed by an official with final policymaking authority’”
• collecting cases in which the court declines to consider additional facts set forth in plaintiff's- opposition papers that are not in . the. complaint
• explaining that, for Fourth Amendment purposes, “in executing a search warrant for drugs, . . . it is reasonable for police officers to enter a residence with guns drawn to secure the area and prevent harm to themselves or others[]”
• considering a search warrant affidavit because the plaintiffs’ claims for unreasonable search and seizure were “explicitly based on their assertions that the warrant was invalid”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).