Search for: ""Ashcroft v. al-Kidd" OR "563 U.S. 731""
Results 1 - 7
of 7
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Aug 2021, 6:00 am
" Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011). [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 5:31 am
This made the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cry: Voss and Legarra are entitled to qualified immunity unless von Brincken shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct,” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011), which he has not done. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 11:44 am
Instead, Africk concludes that qualified immunity applies either way because the law is unsettled: [T]he law is simply too unsettled after Jones for the Court to conclude that it is “beyond debate,” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011), that the officers performed a Fourth Amendment search. [read post]
16 May 2017, 1:14 pm
Indeed, both before the Court’s decision in Iqbal and after the decision, plaintiffs in the case received substantial settlements from the Government (similarly, in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011), another in the line of Bivensnational security cases, the plaintiff received a monetary settlement and a letter of regret).To be fair, we will know the best reading of Iqbal after the Court issues a decision in Ziglar… [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 2:08 pm
Barkes, 575 U.S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 4) (a Government official is liable under the 1871 Act only if “ ‘existing precedent . . . placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate’ ” (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011))). [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 4:18 am
” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 7:30 am
See, e.g., Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011). [read post]
