Tenth Circuit· 4/29/2003

Roska v. Peterson

Citations

328 F.3d 1230
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8142

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).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

62 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

65 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Roska v. Peterson

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Roska v. Peterson
Tenth Circuit· 2003-04-29· cited 118×

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.