Legal Opinion
Doe v. Mann
District Court, N.D. California
Decided September 29, 2003No. C 02-3448 MHPPublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PATEL, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Mary Doe (“Doe”) brings an action against defendants Arthur Mann and Robert L. Crone, Jr. in their official capacity as California Superior Court judges, Lake County Superior Court’s Juvenile Division, Mr. and Mrs. D., and the Department of Social Services of Lake County (“DSS”). Doe alleges that the state child custody proceedings involving her daughter, Jane Doe (“Jane”), violated the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., the Due Process Clause, and state child custody law. Now before the court are two separate motions, one brought…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Touche Ross & Co. v. RedingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Doe v. MannCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- David S. v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
- Steven H. v. Arizona Department of Economic SecurityArizona Supreme Court · 2008
- State, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Family & Youth Services v. Native Village of CuryungAlaska Supreme Court · 2006
- Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.