Wittner Ex Rel. Wittner v. Banner Health

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the district court “should consider retaining state claims when [these interests] would be served by retaining jurisdiction”
• observing that a private actor can be transformed into a state actor under the “joint action” test, in which a court inquires whether state officials and private parties have acted in concert in effecting a particular deprivation of constitutional rights
• observing that a private actor can be transformed into a state actor under the “joint action” test, in which a court inquires whether state officials and private parties have acted in concert in effecting a particular deprivation of constitutional rights
• denying that involuntary commitment is an exclusive state function
• giving four tests to consider when determining whether a person is a state actor and holding that merely being a private physician does not satisfy any of the tests
• lacking any dates after 2021 apart from facts undergirding Wrenn’s retaliation claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).