Search for: "Saucier v. State" Results 21 - 40 of 79
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2010, 9:04 am by David Stras
   Second, he states that the Court’s decision in Pearson v. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 3:54 am
Callahan (discussed here) overruled Saucier v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 3:06 am
   Back in 2001, in Saucier v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 11:30 am
Callahan, No. 07-751 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff's house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant (whom plaintiff had voluntarily admitted to the premises), a court of appeals ruling reversing a ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the procedure the Supreme Court mandated in Saucier v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 11:19 am
Callahan, No. 07-751 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff's house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant (whom plaintiff had voluntarily admitted to the premises), a court of appeals ruling reversing a ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the procedure the Supreme Court mandated in Saucier v. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 11:17 am
S596aCivil rights -- Search and seizure -- Qualified immunity -- Under two-step procedure for resolving government officials' qualified immunity claims mandated by Court in Saucier v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 12:54 pm
Callahan, No. 07-751 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff's house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant (whom plaintiff had voluntarily allowed into the premises), a court of appeals ruling reversing a ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the procedure the Supreme Court mandated in Saucier v. [read post]