Rukhsana Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles

How courts have described this case

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

• finding California’s survival statute limiting damages to pre-death economic losses inconsistent with § 1983 because it was too restrictive to provide adequate deterrence
• recognizing emotional distress as a concrete and cognizable injury
• finding plaintiffs had standing but their substantive due process claim failed on 20 merits because they had no property interest in remains of their deceased sibling under California law
• finding emotional 1 In a separately filed opinion, we address Plaintiffs’ claim that the County’s system of penalties and fees violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. 2 distress cognizable
• reasoning 9 that “a prohibition against pre-death pain and suffering awards for a decedent's estate has 10 the perverse effect of making it more economically advantageous for a defendant to kill 11 rather than injure his victim.”
• \But Article III standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff's contention that particular conduct is illegal.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).