36 Cited authorities

Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (1994) Cited 55,511 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that the deliberate indifference standard utilized for a conditions of confinement claim "is inappropriate . . . when officials stand accused of using excessive physical force."
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (1994) Cited 29,208 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court must dismiss a § 1983 suit if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd
563 U.S. 731 (2011) Cited 8,951 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to be clearly established, "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate"
Sandin v. Conner
515 U.S. 472 (1995) Cited 18,644 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that liberty interests requiring procedural due process are limited to freedom from restraints that impose "atypical and significant hardship" as compared to ordinary prison life
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
457 U.S. 800 (1982) Cited 31,484 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"
Wilson v. Seiter
501 U.S. 294 (1991) Cited 14,956 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding violation of Eighth Amendment requires "obduracy and wantonness" rather than "inadvertence or error in good faith"
Hope v. Pelzer
536 U.S. 730 (2002) Cited 7,399 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he obvious cruelty inherent" in putting inmates in certain wantonly "degrading and dangerous" situations provides officers "with some notice that their alleged conduct violate" the Eighth Amendment
County of Sacramento v. Lewis
523 U.S. 833 (1998) Cited 8,697 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"
Anderson v. Creighton
483 U.S. 635 (1987) Cited 15,417 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed"
Wilkinson v. Austin
545 U.S. 209 (2005) Cited 4,832 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Ohio’s process for assigning prisoners to maximum-security prisons was constitutional because the state gave inmates "notice of the factual basis leading to consideration for [maximum-security-prison] placement and a fair opportunity for rebuttal," and Supreme Court case law "ha consistently observed that these [protections] are among the most important procedural mechanisms for purposes of avoiding erroneous deprivations"

Bridges v. Wetzel et al

36 Cited authorities

Holding that the deliberate indifference standard utilized for a conditions of confinement claim "is inappropriate . . . when officials stand accused of using excessive physical force."

Holding that a court must dismiss a § 1983 suit if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence

Holding that, to be clearly established, "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate"

Holding that liberty interests requiring procedural due process are limited to freedom from restraints that impose "atypical and significant hardship" as compared to ordinary prison life

Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"

Holding violation of Eighth Amendment requires "obduracy and wantonness" rather than "inadvertence or error in good faith"

Holding that "[t]he obvious cruelty inherent" in putting inmates in certain wantonly "degrading and dangerous" situations provides officers "with some notice that their alleged conduct violate" the Eighth Amendment

Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

Holding that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed"