§Why CasetextPricing

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque et al

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION re MOTION to Dismiss City of Albuquerque Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 57 Memorandum in Opposition

41 Cited authorities

  1. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,259 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  2. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 43,378 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

  3. United States v. Bagley

    473 U.S. 667 (1985)   Cited 9,431 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

  4. Foman v. Davis

    371 U.S. 178 (1962)   Cited 28,595 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

  5. Maryland v. Pringle

    540 U.S. 366 (2003)   Cited 2,253 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that probable cause existed to arrest all of a vehicle's occupants after police discovered cocaine and money over which no occupant claimed possession

  6. Manson v. Brathwaite

    432 U.S. 98 (1977)   Cited 5,590 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, if police procedures are unduly suggestive, identification will be excluded if its reliability does not outweigh corrupting influence of suggestive procedure

  7. Delaware v. Prouse

    440 U.S. 648 (1979)   Cited 5,112 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a special need "precludes insistence upon ‘some quantum of individualized suspicion,’ other safeguards are generally relied upon to assure that the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not ‘subject to the discretion of the official in the field’ " (quoting Camara , 387 U.S. at 532, 87 S.Ct. 1727 (footnote omitted))

  8. Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Nev., Humboldt Cty

    542 U.S. 177 (2004)   Cited 996 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Constitution does not prevent states from requiring people to produce identification during a Terry stop

  9. Kastigar v. United States

    406 U.S. 441 (1972)   Cited 2,162 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"

  10. United States v. Hubbell

    530 U.S. 27 (2000)   Cited 443 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding foregone conclusion exception did not apply to request for broad categories such as "tax records" when the government made no showing "that it had any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts of the 13,120 pages of documents ultimately produced" under an immunity agreement

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 90,400 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,512 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure