§Why CasetextPricing

Ford v. Mitchell et al

MOTION to Dismiss

121 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,028 times   280 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

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,776 times   367 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Pearson v. Callahan

    555 U.S. 223 (2009)   Cited 22,634 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may, without deciding whether there was a constitutional violation, look to the question of whether that right was "clearly established"

  4. County of Sacramento v. Lewis

    523 U.S. 833 (1998)   Cited 8,749 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"

  5. Anderson v. Creighton

    483 U.S. 635 (1987)   Cited 15,480 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"

  6. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

    403 U.S. 388 (1971)   Cited 25,991 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is an implied cause of action for money damages against federal officials for violations of the Fourth Amendment

  7. Malley v. Briggs

    475 U.S. 335 (1986)   Cited 9,244 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reasonably well-trained officer who would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he shouldn't have applied for a warrant violates an arrestee's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures and does not enjoy qualified immunity when he arrests someone based on the warrant he nonetheless procured from a judicial officer

  8. Brosseau v. Haugen

    543 U.S. 194 (2004)   Cited 3,524 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a vehicle was a threat when it was driven in a manner indicating a willful disregard for the lives of others

  9. Wilson v. Layne

    526 U.S. 603 (1999)   Cited 3,901 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that officers’ conduct was reasonable where they followed a common police practice and no judicial opinions at the time prohibited the conduct

  10. Imbler v. Pachtman

    424 U.S. 409 (1976)   Cited 10,677 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding prosecutors absolutely immune from damages liability for having knowingly presented perjured witness testimony against criminal defendants, observing that the "veracity of witnesses in criminal cases frequently is subject to doubt before and after they testify . . . . If prosecutors were hampered in exercising their judgment as to the use of such witnesses by concern about resulting personal liability, [they often would refrain from calling such witnesses and hence] the triers of fact in criminal cases often would be denied relevant evidence"

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 490,094 times   693 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 348,310 times   930 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  13. Section 1346 - United States as defendant

    28 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 24,130 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

  14. Section 3583 - Inclusion of a term of supervised release after imprisonment

    18 U.S.C. § 3583   Cited 16,926 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Adopting by reference 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b) to govern the ordering of restitution as a condition of supervised release

  15. Section 2680 - Exceptions

    28 U.S.C. § 2680   Cited 7,702 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that claims for injurious falsehoods, disparagement of property, slander of goods, or trade libel are claims arising out of libel or slander under the FTCA

  16. Section 3345 - Acting officer

    5 U.S.C. § 3345   Cited 173 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Providing that an Acting Director may be an inferior officer within the PTO

  17. Section 2.44 - Summons to appear or warrant for retaking of parolee

    28 C.F.R. § 2.44   Cited 76 times
    Continuing to require "satisfactory evidence" of the alleged violation

  18. Section 2.40 - Conditions of release

    28 C.F.R. § 2.40   Cited 58 times
    Conditioning federal parole on non-association with known criminals, unless permission is granted by the parole officer

  19. Section 2.98 - Summons to appear or warrant for retaking of parolee

    28 C.F.R. § 2.98   Cited 28 times
    Requiring a warrant application must accompany a warrant, stating the charges against the parolee

  20. Section 2.211 - Summons to appear or warrant for retaking releasee

    28 C.F.R. § 2.211   Cited 10 times

    (a) If a releasee is alleged to have violated the conditions of his release, and satisfactory evidence thereof is presented, a Commissioner may: (1) Issue a summons requiring the releasee to appear for a probable cause hearing or local revocation hearing; or (2) Issue a warrant for the apprehension and return of the releasee to custody. (b) A summons or warrant under paragraph (a) of this section may be issued or withdrawn only by a Commissioner. (c) Any summons or warrant under this section shall

  21. Section 800.1 - Statutory authorization

    28 C.F.R. § 800.1   Cited 2 times
    Noting the statutory authority creating the CSOSA "within the federal government as an independent executive branch agency"

  22. Section 2.200 - Authority, jurisdiction, and functions of the U.S. Parole Commission with respect to offenders serving terms of supervised release imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

    28 C.F.R. § 2.200   Cited 2 times

    (a) The U.S. Parole Commission has jurisdiction, pursuant to D.C. Code 24-133(c)(2), over all offenders serving terms of supervised release imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under the Sentencing Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 2000. (b) The U.S. Parole Commission shall have and exercise the same authority with respect to a term of supervised release as is vested in the United States district courts by 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) through (i) , except that: (1) The procedures followed

  23. Section 2.201 - Period of supervised release

    28 C.F.R. § 2.201

    (a) A period of supervised release that is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction begins to run on the day the offender is released from prison and continues to the expiration of the full term imposed by the Superior Court, unless early termination is granted by the Commission. (b) A term of supervised release shall run concurrently with any federal, state, or local term of probation, parole or supervised release for another offense, but does not run while the offender is imprisoned in connection

  24. Section 800.4 - Director

    28 C.F.R. § 800.4

    (a) CSOSA is headed by a Director appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of six years. (b) PSA is headed by a Director appointed by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in consultation with an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee includes the four chief judges of the local and Federal trial and appellate