Roska v. Peterson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because the child’s health and safety “were not in immediate danger,” “clearly established law put the defendants on notice that their conduct [removal without pre-deprivation procedures] violated the Constitution”
• holding that warrantless seizure of a child from his home by child welfare caseworkers who entered home accompanied by police, based on suspected child abuse due to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights
• explaining that the district court need not comb through the summary judgment record for evidence supporting a party’s arguments
• explaining that the district court need not comb through the summary judgment record for evidence supporting a party’s arguments
• considering that the child’s “attending physician stated on the phone that it would be a mistake to remove him from the home”
• holding warrantless seizure of child from home based on suspected child abuse due to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy stated Fourteenth Amendment violation because no emergency circumstances existed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).