Muhammad v. United States (2012)
green
· 15 citation events
across 7 courts.
Showing the 8 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
In Re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation (2016)
Pa. 2015) (stating there was no intrusion claim where the personal information in question was “voluntarily provided” to the defendant); Muhammad v. United States, 884 F.Supp.2d 306, 317 (E.D.
concluding that the plaintiff adequately alleged intrusion by federal agents *294 who, among other actions, entered his home "without consent or a search warrant”
green
Schreiner v. Hodge (2022)
Cir. 2016) ("At least seven circuits, including the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth, have either held or stated in dictum that the discretionary-function exception does not shield government officials from FTCA liability when they exceed the scope of their constitutional authority" and "[t]o this court's knowledge, only the Seventh Circuit has held otherwise."); see, e.g., Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2000) (no discretionary fun…
"it is well established that the discretionary function exception does not apply to constitutional violations"
green
POPA v. HARRIET CARTER GIFTS, INC. (2019)
Jn re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig., 827 F.3d 262 , 293-94 & n.198 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Gabriel 124 F. Supp. 3d at 572 ; then citing Muhammad v. United States, 884 F. Supp. 2d 306, 317 (E.D.
green
Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc. (2015)
Plaintiff must allege that the conducted amounted to an “intentional intrusion upon the seclusion of his private affairs which was substantial and highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Muhammad v. United States, 884 F.Supp.2d 306, 317 (E.D.Pa.2012), (citing Pro Golf.
green
Prukala v. Elle (2014)
Assuming Plaintiff brings an intrusion upon seclusion claim, 7 she must allege “conduct amounting to ‘an intentional intrusion upon the seclusion of [her] private affairs which was substantial and highly offensive to a reasonable person.’ ” Muhammad v. United States, 884 F.Supp.2d 306, 317 (E.D.Pa.2012) (citing Pro Golf.
green
Jason Youker v. Douglas County (2014)
United States, 884 F. Supp. 2d 306, 317 (E.D.
noting that "[a]ccording to the illustrations in the Restatement, a warrantless search ofa home qualifies as a physical intrusion into a place where the plaintiff has secluded himself," (citing RESTATEMENT § 652B)
green
Youker v. Douglas County (2014)
See, e.g., Mauri v. Smith, 324 Or. 476 , 929 P.2d 307, 311-12 (1996) (reversing directed verdict for defendant officers on plaintiffs’ intrusion on seclusion claim); Monroe v. Darr, 221 Kan. 281 , 559 P.2d 322, 327 (1977); Muhammad v. United States, 884 F. Supp. 2d 306, 317 (E.D.
noting that “ [according to the illustrations in the Restatement, a warrantless search of a home qualifies as a physical intrusion into a place where the plaintiff has secluded himself” (citing Restatement § 652B)
green
HARTEL v. BEAZER EAST, INC. (2025)
Co., 91 A.2d 232, 235 (Pa. 1952))); see also Muhammad v. United States, 884 F. Supp. 2d 306, 316 (E.D.