Cannabis Ruderalis

How this document has been cited

Federal courts must give a state court decision the same preclusive effect that it would receive in state court.
- in Falardo v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPT., 2008 and 11 similar citations
—holding that an "expressed intent to provide assistance," without an "affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act," did not create a special relationship between state guardians and mentally-handicapped adults placed in residential care
In New York, `once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy
- in Bess v. Spitzer, 2006 and 7 similar citations
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must "demonstrate [](1) irreparable harm and (2) either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) `sufficiently serious questions' on the merits and a balance of hardships `tipping decidedly'in the movant's favor. "
- in Rosen v. Siegel, 1997 and 8 similar citations
—even though the plaintiffs' commitment to out-of-state residential treatment facilities did not give rise to Youngberg rights, an "involuntary transfer" to in-state facilities would "restrict plaintiffs' liberty" and thereby "implicate the Due Process Clause."
- in Torisky v. Schweiker, 2006 and 5 similar citations
Mere custody, however, will not support a "special relationship" claim where a "person voluntarily resides in a state facility under its custodial rules."
- in Campbell v. State of Washington DSHS, 2011 and 4 similar citations
—holding there was no "duty to exercise professional judgment" because the plaintiffs were not under a "state-imposed restraint" (internal quotation marks omitted
- in Johnson v. Rimmer, 2019 and 3 similar citations
Courts generally agree that individuals who voluntarily admit themselves to a state-run mental health facility do not have substantive due process rights simply because they are in the state's custody.
- in Johnson v. Rimmer, 2019 and 4 similar citations
It further asserts that every published circuit court decision to consider this matter post-DeShaney has determined that involuntary confinement is required to implicate residents' Youngberg rights.
- in US v. State, 2010 and 4 similar citations
This Court agreed with the First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits that the involuntary nature of the commitment determines whether the State has a constitutional duty of care. See Op. at 12-18
- in Colbert v. Dist. of Columbia, 2015 and 2 similar citations

Cited by

101 F. 3d 818 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1996
113 F. 3d 394 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1997
Dist. Court, ND New York 2024
Dist. Court, WD Washington 2009
933 F. Supp. 286 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1996
936 F. 3d 695 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2019
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2019
78 F. Supp. 3d 1 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2015
5 F. Supp. 3d 44 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2013
Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2013

Leave a Reply