Rodriguez v. Passinault

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding in dicta that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply between consolidated cases because “consolidation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 does not render rulings in one case applicable to a consolidated action”
• distinguishing cases like Claybrook “on the basis” of a lack of “intentional acquisition of physical control” of the innocent third party
• “A claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that a seizure occurred.”
• “‘Consolidation ... does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.’” (quoting Kraft, Inc. v. Local Union 327, Teamsters, 683 F.2d 131, 133 (6th Cir. 1982))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).