8 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kirschbaum v. McLaurin Parking Co.green2 sentences2021See, e.g., Millet v. Logan City, 147 P3d 971, 977 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (noting the existence of an ordinance allowing property owners to boot trespassing motor vehicles when they comply with certain regulations, but primarily addressing the fact that the private vehicle immobilization company at issue was not a state actor for purposes of the plaintiff’s civil rights claim); Kirschbaum v. McLaurin Parking Co., 656 SE2d 683, 687 (N.C. 2021See, e.g., Millet v. Logan City, 147 P3d 971, 977 (II) (A) (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (noting the existence of an ordinance allowing property owners to boot trespassing motor vehicles when they comply with certain regulations, but primarily addressing the fact that the private vehicle immobilization company at issue was not a state actor for purposes of the plaintiff’s civil rights claim); Kirschbaum v. McLaurin Parking Co., 656 SE2d 683, 687 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Millet v. Logan Citygreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Millet v. Logan City, 147 P3d 971, 977 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (noting the existence of an ordinance allowing property owners to boot trespassing motor vehicles when they comply with certain regulations, but primarily addressing the fact that the private vehicle immobilization company at issue was not a state actor for purposes of the plaintiff’s civil rights claim); Kirschbaum v. McLaurin Parking Co., 656 SE2d 683, 687 (N.C. 2021See, e.g., Millet v. Logan City, 147 P3d 971, 977 (II) (A) (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (noting the existence of an ordinance allowing property owners to boot trespassing motor vehicles when they comply with certain regulations, but primarily addressing the fact that the private vehicle immobilization company at issue was not a state actor for purposes of the plaintiff’s civil rights claim); Kirschbaum v. McLaurin Parking Co., 656 SE2d 683, 687 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Blackmon v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Alvelo v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Cowart v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Kidd v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Connorgreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Minor v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Drayton v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. the Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Christopher v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Colzie v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Duggan v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
Dugger v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe 2017See also supra notes 18-20 & accompanying text. 46 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 109 SCt 1865 , 104 LE2d 443) (1989) (explaining that, in analyzing a civil rights claim based on excessive force, the “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”). 47 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 48 OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012) (holding that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) requires an appellate court to revie w for plain error an alleged jury-instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial); Whe | 1 | 1 |
County of Riverside v. McLaughlingreen1 sentence2007See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. at 48-50 (I) (recognizing that an arrestee suffers a personal injury that may be actionable as a civil rights violation when the arrestee is held in violation of the constitutional requirement of a prompt probable cause determination); Taylor v. Chitwood, 266 Ga. at 794 (Sears, J., concurring) (failing to adhere to the mandatory language of Uniform Superior Court Rule 26.1 may subject the State to civil litigation); French v. State, 99 Ga. App. 149, 151 (5) ( 107 SE2d 890 ) (1959) (“an arresting officer may be liable in damages for false arrest | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Chitwoodgreen1 sentence2007See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. at 48-50 (I) (recognizing that an arrestee suffers a personal injury that may be actionable as a civil rights violation when the arrestee is held in violation of the constitutional requirement of a prompt probable cause determination); Taylor v. Chitwood, 266 Ga. at 794 (Sears, J., concurring) (failing to adhere to the mandatory language of Uniform Superior Court Rule 26.1 may subject the State to civil litigation); French v. State, 99 Ga. App. 149, 151 (5) ( 107 SE2d 890 ) (1959) (“an arresting officer may be liable in damages for false arrest | 1 | 1 |
French v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. at 48-50 (I) (recognizing that an arrestee suffers a personal injury that may be actionable as a civil rights violation when the arrestee is held in violation of the constitutional requirement of a prompt probable cause determination); Taylor v. Chitwood, 266 Ga. at 794 (Sears, J., concurring) (failing to adhere to the mandatory language of Uniform Superior Court Rule 26.1 may subject the State to civil litigation); French v. State, 99 Ga. App. 149, 151 (5) ( 107 SE2d 890 ) (1959) (“an arresting officer may be liable in damages for false arrest 2007See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. at 48-50 (I) (recognizing that an arrestee suffers a personal injury that may be actionable as a civil rights violation when the arrestee is held in violation of the constitutional requirement of a prompt probable cause determination); Taylor v. Chitwood, 266 Ga. at 794 (Sears, J., concurring) (failing to adhere to the mandatory language of Uniform Superior Court Rule 26.1 may subject the State to civil litigation); French v. State, 99 Ga. App. 149, 151 (5) ( 107 SE2d 890 ) (1959) (“an arresting officer may be liable in damages for false arrest | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Creightongreen1 sentence2003Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (107 SC 3034, 97 LE2d 523) (1987). 5 The burden on the plaintiff to show a clearly established right is a *184 strenuous one. 6 And “if the law is not clearly established, the officer is entitled to summary judgment regardless of factual disputes.” 7 The Administrator claims that the clearly established right violated by Johnson and Gerido was the right not to be ordered to commit a dangerous and suicidal act. 8 Although the Administrator has cited no authority involving a civil rights claim áfter the police allegedly ordered a drunk to drive, we recog | 1 | 1 |
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbsred1 sentence1981There is no question but that the alleged civil rights violation and the alleged breach of the bond arise out of the same assault and “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 725 (86 SC 1130, 16 LE2d 218) (1966). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Will v. Michigan Department of State Policegreen1 sentence1996But see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58, 66-70 (109 SC 2304, 105 LE2d 45) (1989) (state is not a “person” subject to liability under 42 USC § 1983 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blanchard v. Bergeron
green
2 sentences1993In Blanchard, supra, 489 U. S. at 90-97 , the Court held that a client who had entered into a contingent fee contract with an attorney on a civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983 should not be limited in a fee award to the amount represented by the contingent fee agreement, but instead was entitled to an amount representing reasonable attorney fees for services rendered in vindicating a plaintiff’s civil rights. 3 Moreover, in Blum , the Court held that a client who was represented without a fee by a private non-profit legal organization was entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. 465 U. 1993In Blanchard, supra, 489 U. S. at 90-97 , the Court held that a client who had entered into a contingent fee contract with an attorney on a civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983 should not be limited in a fee award to the amount represented by the contingent fee agreement, but instead was entitled to an amount representing reasonable attorney fees for services rendered in vindicating a plaintiff's civil rights. [3] Moreover, in Blum , the Court held that a client who was represented without a fee by a private non-profit legal organization was entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. 465 | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Blum v. Stenson
green
2 sentences1993In Blanchard, supra, 489 U. S. at 90-97 , the Court held that a client who had entered into a contingent fee contract with an attorney on a civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983 should not be limited in a fee award to the amount represented by the contingent fee agreement, but instead was entitled to an amount representing reasonable attorney fees for services rendered in vindicating a plaintiff’s civil rights. 3 Moreover, in Blum , the Court held that a client who was represented without a fee by a private non-profit legal organization was entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. 465 U. 1993In Blanchard, supra, 489 U. S. at 90-97 , the Court held that a client who had entered into a contingent fee contract with an attorney on a civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983 should not be limited in a fee award to the amount represented by the contingent fee agreement, but instead was entitled to an amount representing reasonable attorney fees for services rendered in vindicating a plaintiff's civil rights. [3] Moreover, in Blum , the Court held that a client who was represented without a fee by a private non-profit legal organization was entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. 465 | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gerald v. Ameron Automotive Centers
green
2 sentences1984Gerald v. Ameron Automotive Centers, 145 Ga. App. 200 ( 243 SE2d 565 ) (1978). 1984Gerald v. Ameron Automotive Centers, 145 Ga. App. 200 ( 243 SE2d 565 ) (1978). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.