green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
34.7 score
“eadly force' means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.”
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kelsey v. Clark
peculation" regarding future contingencies that "might" occur "is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Anderson v. Vanden Avond
eadly force' means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramos Ramos v. Jordan-Conde
Co. v. Massachusetts, 391 F.3d 48, 53 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172-73 (1977) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Hughes v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company
Thus, “in the context of an action for declaratory relief, a plaintiff must be seeking more than a retrospective opinion that he was wrongly harmed by the defendant.” Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1025 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SHELIGA v. WINDBER BOROUGH
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Waller v. Hanlon, in turn, at 922 F.3d 603–04, cited Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SCOTT v. MYERS
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Waller v. Hanlon, in turn, at 922 F.3d 603–04, cited Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Military Road Revitalization Company, LLC v. St. Tammany Parish Government
“For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which ‘calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.’” Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 242 (1937)); see also Bauer v. Texas, 341 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
InfoCision Management Corporation v. Griswold
However, “in the context of an action for declaratory relief, a plaintiff must be seeking more than a retrospective opinion that he was wrongly harmed by the defendant.” Jordan, 654 F.3d at 1025 (citing Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam) (concluding that appellee’s claim for declaratory relief was moot where his “primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that he will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling that his son’s death was wrongful”); Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1299 (10th Cir. 1997) (“This ‘legal interest’ [impacted by …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Society Insurance v. Blue Hill Hospitality Inc
Wis. June 23, 2015) (citing Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calpine Corp. v. PA DEP & PA EQB
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172-73 [(1977)] (per curiam) (holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot when no “present right” is involved and the primary interest is the emotional satisfaction from a favorable ruling).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jody Lutter v. Jneso
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977); see also Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986) (“The presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to meet [Article] III’s requirements.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fasking v. Allen (CONSENT)
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (“For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which “calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.” (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SABIR v. WARDEN FCI LORETTO
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY v. REFRESH HOME IMPROVEMENT LLC
Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude granting a motion for summary and acts at the direction of and within the scope of duties determined by you, and is not paid a fee, salary, or other compensation by you or anyone else for their work performed by you.” Id. at CG 00 01 04 13 at 13, 14, 16 §V (5), (10), (19), (20). 7 The Declaratory Judgment Act allows any court of the United States to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (a). “[…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Renewable Energy Development Corporation
Based on both lack of merit and mootness (noting now that the Trustee has been discharged), the 23 Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977). 10 Court will also enter an order denying Ms. Ceruti’s August 31 Motion to Disqualify David Miller as Trustee and striking the October 5 hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
R.E. Johnson v. T. Ferguson
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172-73 [(1977)] (per curiam) (holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot when no “present right” is involved and the primary interest is the emotional satisfaction from a favorable ruling).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Geary v. Nat'l Newspaper Publishers Assoc.
“While the emotional satisfaction of a victory may be important to a litigant, ‘emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.’” Settlemire, 898 A.2d at 907 (quoting Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 173 (1977)). 2 In the trial court, Ms. Geary also argued that her claim was not moot because she had incurred expenses related to board travel, but she never sought damages in her complaint, so those alleged losses cannot save her claim from mootness even if she had preserved the argum…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hemp Industries Association v. DEA
In other words, a plaintiff cannot simply rest on some abstract desire to know his rights or status under a statute, see, e.g., Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977); Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 109 (1969), but rather needs to connect the requested declaration to some actual or imminent injury, see Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 , 458–59 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J. Markham v. T.W. Wolf, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the Com of PA
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172-73 [(1977)] (per curiam) (holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot when no “present right” is involved and the primary interest is the emotional satisfaction from a favorable ruling).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TERA II, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC
(Ascent Mot. to Dismiss, at 5–7, ECF No. 16; XTO Mot. to Dismiss, at 5–7, ECF No. 17.) For a court to have jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment, “there must be a dispute which ‘calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.’” Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J&R Passmore, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC
Existence of a Case or Controversy For a court to have jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment, “there must be a dispute which ‘calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.’” Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
B&N Coal, Inc. v. Blue Racer Midstream, LLC
In order for a court to have jurisdiction, “there must be a dispute which ‘calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.’” Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dimock Operating Company, and Joe W. Dimock, D/B/A Dimock Petroleum v. Sutherland Energy Co., LLC
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977), emphasis added.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dwayne Volkman v. Lee Ryker
See Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 4 (1988) (a declaratory judgment request cannot sustain a live case or controversy where granting the declaratory judgment would not “affect[ ] the behavior of defendant toward the plaintiff”); Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot where the “primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that [the plaintiff] will obtain emotional satisfaction from [the] ruling”). 12 No. 12‐1778 Volkman spoke as a private citizen or in his capacity as a public employee; whether he spoke on a matt…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Division
The Court found it insufficient, for standing purposes, that the plaintiff had “alleged that he had another son, who ‘if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers.’ ” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 104-05 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 (quoting Mattis, 431 U.S. at 172-73, n. 2 , 97 S.Ct. 1739 ) (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
TeamBank v. D. Eric McClure
See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172, 97 S.Ct. 1739 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977). 4 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anders Ex Rel. Anders v. Fort Wayne Community Schools
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172, n. 2 , 97 S.Ct. 1739 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kemler v. Poston
For example, there was no standing where the plaintiff feared that, in a future encounter with police, the officers might administer an allegedly illegal “chokehol[d],” Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 ; where the prospective future candidacy of a former Congressman was involved, Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 109 , 89 S.Ct. 956 , 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969); and where it was apprehended that the police might use deadly force against a person fleeing from an as yet unaffected arrest, Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172, n. 2 , 97 S.Ct. 1739 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alan M. Adler v. Pataki
Cf. Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greg Cannon v. State of Arkansas
See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105-06 (concluding, although police officers applied “chokehold” to Lyons, he lacked standing to seek declaratory judgment or injunction barring police use of chokeholds; Lyons may have damages claim, but such does not establish real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped by officer who would illegally choke him; to establish controversy, Lyons must allege that he would have another police encounter and that all officers always choke citizens, or that City ordered officers to act in such manner); Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 171-73 (1977) (per curia…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
(2×)
Our cases mention third-party-caused contingency, naturally enough; but they also mention the plaintiff's failure to show that he will soon expose himself to the injury, see, e. g., Lyons, supra, at 105-106 ; O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 497 (1974); Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171, 172-173, n. 2 (1977) (per curiam) .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas
(2×)
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171, 172, n. 2 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Saladin v. City of Milledgeville
As the Supreme Court of the United States said in Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 173 , 97 S.Ct. 1739, 1740 , 52 L.E.2d 219, 222 (1977), “Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.” The emotional involvement of these plaintiffs in this lawsuit is likewise not enough to make the City of Milledgeville’s past but never to be repeated use of a city seal bearing the legible word Christianity, a “case” or “controversy” within this court’s jurisdiction.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe v. McFaul
No “present right” of appellee was at stake. 431 U.S. at 172 , 97 S.Ct. at 1740 (citations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
(6×)
Plaintiff alleged that he had an other son, who “‘if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers ....’” Id., at 172, n. 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bunge Corp. v. Agri-Trans Corp.
See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 , 71 n.15, 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 2629 n.15, 57 L.Ed.2d 595, 610, n.15 (1978) (Declaratory Judgment Act does not expand jurisdiction); Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 , 97 S.Ct. 1739, 1740 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219, 222 (1977) (for declaratory judgment there must be dispute which calls for adjudication of present right upon established fact, not advisory opinion). *967 The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests ....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper
(2×)
E. g., Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171, 172-173 (1977) ( per curiam ); Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147 (1975) ( per curiam ); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U. S., at 401-404 ; Indianapolis School Comm'rs v. Jacobs, 420 U. S. 128 (1975); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 316-320 (1974) ( per curiam ); North Carolina v. Rice, supra, at 246 ; SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U. S. 403, 407 (1972). [11] Respondents do not suggest that their claims are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Cf. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 110-111, n. 11 (1975). [12] And not a single one …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty
(2×)
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171, 172-173 (1977) ( per curiam ). [3] See 13 C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bryant v. McLean
See Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (holding that a claim for declaratory relief was moot where the “primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that [the plaintiff] will obtain emotional satisfaction from [the] ruling”); Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1299 (10th Cir. 1997) (“This ‘legal interest’ must be more than 22 simply the satisfaction of a declaration that a person was wronged.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carrete v. New Mexico Racing Commission
See Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam) (holding that there was no basis for declaratory judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that a statute was unconstitutional after the plaintiff’s claims for damages against the defendants were dismissed).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pilot Point, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth
See Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (“For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.” (quotation marks omitted)); Mass. Delivery Ass’n v. Coakley, 769 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2014) (observing that there must be “sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment” (quotation marks omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ingram Barge Company, LLC v. Bunge North America, Inc.
See Fieger v. Mich. Supreme Court, 553 F.3d 955, 969 (6th Cir. 2009) (“For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.”) (quoting Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977)).
cited
Cited "see"
Cohen v. Gruber
Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 242 (1937); see Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977); Md.
examined
Cited "see"
Angie Waller v. City of Fort Worth Texas, e
(3×)
See Ashcroft v. Mattis , 431 U.S. 171 , 172, 97 S.Ct. 1739 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977) (per curiam).
examined
Cited "see"
Anna Habetler v. Sylvia Burwell
(3×)
See Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 , 97 S.Ct. 1739 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977) (per curiam).
examined
Cited "see"
Allied Home Mortgage Corp. v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
(3×)
See Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 , 97 S.Ct. 1739 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977) (after plaintiff abandoned claim for damages, no longer a live case or controversy for court to decide constitutionality of challenged statute).
examined
Cited "see"
Jordan v. Sosa
(3×)
See Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 , 97 S.Ct. 1739 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977) (per curiam) (concluding that appellee’s claim for declaratory relief was moot where his “primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that he will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling that his son’s death was wrongful”); Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1299 (10th Cir.1997) (“This ‘legal interest’ [impacted by the litigation] must be more than simply the satisfaction of a declaration that a person was wronged.” (quoting Cox v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 43 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir.1…
discussed
Cited "see"
Camreta v. Greene Ex Rel. S. G.
(2×)
See Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 , 103–105 (1983) (citing Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171 (1977) (per curiam); Golden v. Zwick ler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969)); see also MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U. S. 118, 127 (2007).
examined
Cited "see"
Ortiz v. A.N.P., Inc.
(3×)
See Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 , 97 S.Ct. 1739 , 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977) (per curiam) (citations omitted) (“For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ashcroft, Attorney General of Missouri
v.
Mattis
v.
Mattis
76-1179.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1977.
Per Curiam.
Appellee’s 18-year-old son was shot and killed by police while attempting to escape arrest. Appellee filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the police officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He sought to recover damages, and also to obtain a declaratory judgment that the Missouri statutes authorizing the police action were unconstitutional. [1] The District Court held that a defense of good faith had been established, and denied both forms of relief. No appeal was taken from the denial of damages, but appellee did seek review of the denial of declaratory relief. The Eighth Circuit held that declaratory relief was available and remanded for consideration of[*172] the merits of the constitutional issue. Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F. 2d 588 (1974).
On remand, appellee filed an amended complaint, in which he made no claim for damages. The Missouri Attorney General was allowed to intervene in defense of the statutes, and the case was then submitted on stipulated facts. The District Court upheld the statutes, Mattis v. Schnarr, 404 F. Supp. 643 (1975), but was reversed by a divided Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, 547 F. 2d 1007 (1976). The Attorney General brought an appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (2) from the holding that the state statutes were unconstitutional.
Although we are urged to consider the merits of the Court of Appeals’ holding, we are unable to do so, because this suit does not now present a live “case or controversy.” This suit was brought to determine the police officers’ liability for the death of appellee’s son. That issue has been decided, and there is no longer any possible basis for a damages claim. Nor is there any possible basis for a declaratory judgment. For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which “calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 242 (1937). See also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941). Here, the District Court was asked to answer the hypothetical question whether the defendants would have been liable apart from their defense of good faith. No “present right” of appellee was at stake. Indeed, appellee’s primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that he will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling that his son’s death was wrongful. [2] Appellee’s[*173] Motion to Affirm 5-6, n. 1. Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the second amended complaint.
It is so ordered.
1
These statutes permit police to use deadly force in apprehending a person who has committed a felony, following notice of the intent to arrest. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 559.040 and 544.190 (1969); see Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F. 2d 588, 591, and n. 4 (CA8 1974).
2
The second amended complaint also alleges that appellee has another son who “if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers . . . .” 3 App. in Mattis v. Schnarr, No. 75-1849 (CA8), p. 5[*173] (emphasis added). Such speculation is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.