Plaintiff had a liberty interest in not being mistakenly labeled as a sex offender and the process to challenge such erroneous listing was inadequate, however, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether a DOC employee personally deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right.
Adopts adopt Restatement (Third) of Torts § 14, “Tortfeasor Liable For Failure To Protect The Plaintiff From The Specific Risk Of An Intentional Tort.”
The trial court properly vacated a paternity order issued under a fraudulent pretext.
A defendant need not show prejudice to obtain reversal relief from a violation of a local anti-forum shopping rule filed pursuant to Criminal Rule 2.2.
While social security income may not itself be levied against to pay a criminal restitution order, social security may be taken into account in determining a defendant’s ability to pay restitution.