Searles v. Berkel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “routinely fail[ing] to follow mandatory procedures under state law” created no certainly impending injury to establish standing for a declaratory judgment
• holding, in 2015, that the right to not be removed based on a social worker’s false or reckless statements of material fact was not clearly established
• holding the “Fourth Amendment right to avoid warrantless, in-school interviews by social workers on suspicion of child abuse not to have been clearly established in January 2011” and declining to rule on the constitutional merits of the claim
• affirming 6 Hargett noted that “standing-related cases before Twombly and Iqbal ‘presum[ed] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.’” Hargett, 947 F.3d at 982 (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992)
• “[S]ocial workers enjoy absolute immunity when acting in their capacities as legal advocates,” which includes “initiating court proceedings” and “filing child-abuse complaints.”
• “Though [the plaintiff] has standing to sue under § 1983 for past harms, he must demonstrate separate standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief focused on prospective harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).