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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 15 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 Jose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith Anchor | green | “a public official does not get the benefit of 'one liability-free violation' simply because the circumstance of his case is not identical to that of a prior case.” | 9 |
| 2 | Jose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith | green | “must keep in mind that the third circuit takes a broad view of what constitutes an established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” | 3 |
| 3 | Angelo Clark v. Robert Coupe | green | “engage in a two-part analysis: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a right had been violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established when it was allegedly violated to the extent that it would have been clear to a reasonable person that his conduct was unla…” | 3 |
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.