96 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 254,855 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (1989) Cited 25,398 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that the reasonableness of force deployed during an arrest is judged using the "facts and circumstances of each particular case" from the perspective of "a reasonable officer on the scene"
Albright v. Oliver
510 U.S. 266 (1994) Cited 12,482 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution
County of Sacramento v. Lewis
523 U.S. 833 (1998) Cited 8,746 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"
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,903 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.
Hudson v. Palmer
468 U.S. 517 (1984) Cited 12,449 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy
Nken v. Holder
556 U.S. 418 (2009) Cited 3,330 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"
Zadvydas v. Davis
533 U.S. 678 (2001) Cited 4,272 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Government's detention authority under Section 1231 is authorized for "a period reasonably necessary to secure removal"
Collins v. Harker Heights
503 U.S. 115 (1992) Cited 4,901 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 1983 "does not provide a remedy for abuses that do not violate federal law"
United States v. Lanier
520 U.S. 259 (1997) Cited 2,410 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should look to prior judicial decisions interpreting a statute in considering whether it is vague
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 157,408 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal
8 U.S.C. § 1252 Cited 42,694 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"
Section 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1226 Cited 3,173 times 22 Legal Analyses
Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"
Section 1105a - Employment authorization for battered spouses of certain nonimmigrants
8 U.S.C. § 1105a Cited 2,573 times 1 Legal Analyses
Requiring appellate courts to uphold the Board's conclusions if "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record as a whole"
Section 52-59b - Jurisdiction of courts over nonresident individuals, foreign partnerships and foreign voluntary associations. Service of process
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b Cited 238 times 2 Legal Analyses
Listing criteria to include among others a non-resident defendant who “[t]ransacts any business within the state”

Diaz-Bernal et al v. Myers et al

96 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that the reasonableness of force deployed during an arrest is judged using the "facts and circumstances of each particular case" from the perspective of "a reasonable officer on the scene"

Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution

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 a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

Holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy

Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"

Holding that the Government's detention authority under Section 1231 is authorized for "a period reasonably necessary to secure removal"

Holding that § 1983 "does not provide a remedy for abuses that do not violate federal law"

Holding that courts should look to prior judicial decisions interpreting a statute in considering whether it is vague

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"

Requiring appellate courts to uphold the Board's conclusions if "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record as a whole"

Listing criteria to include among others a non-resident defendant who “[t]ransacts any business within the state”