Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 30 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Robert Siebert and Pamela Siebert v. David Severino.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Robert Siebert and Pamela Siebert v. David Severino Anchor | green | “what they are doing violates the constitution, or if a closely analogous case establishes that the conduct is unconstitutional.” | 13 |
| 2 | Mark D. Jones and Theresa A. Jones v. Ron Wilhelm, Cross-Appellee | green | “whether the implicated right was clearly established at the time.” | 6 |
| 3 | Easterling v. Pollard | green | “clearly established under applicable law at the time and under the circumstances that the defendant official acted.” | 6 |
| 4 | Mark D. Jones and Theresa A. Jones v. Ron Wilhelm, Cross-Appellee | green | “in determining whether a defendant's alleged actions violated a clearly established right, courts may properly take into account any information the defendant ought reasonably to have obtained.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.