97 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 243,773 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 222,793 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
  3. Pearson v. Callahan

    555 U.S. 223 (2009)   Cited 23,784 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, while there is still a two-pronged test, courts of appeals can use their discretion as to which prong to address first
  4. Saucier v. Katz

    533 U.S. 194 (2001)   Cited 20,755 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding when a defendant seeks qualified immunity, "a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive."
  5. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 29,692 times   144 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
  6. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services

    436 U.S. 658 (1978)   Cited 70,782 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "local government ... are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  7. Graham v. Connor

    490 U.S. 386 (1989)   Cited 26,602 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"
  8. Board of Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown

    520 U.S. 397 (1997)   Cited 12,925 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "high degree of predictability may also support an inference of causation—that the municipality's indifference led directly to the very consequence that was so predictable"
  9. Harlow v. Fitzgerald

    457 U.S. 800 (1982)   Cited 32,501 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"
  10. Canton v. Harris

    489 U.S. 378 (1989)   Cited 17,115 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the city could be held liable for failing to train police officers in determining whether detainees needed medical care because of the likelihood that, absent proper training, the officers would default on their constitutional obligations
  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 512,287 times   718 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
  12. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 339,855 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  13. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 16,152 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
  14. Section 537.600 - Sovereign immunity in effect - exceptions

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600   Cited 469 times
    Waiving state sovereign immunity for the torts of negligent operation of a motor vehicle or a dangerous condition on public property
  15. Section 16257 - Rights of former departments vested in city; suits, etc., to be in name of city

    53 Pa. Stat. § 16257   Cited 60 times
    Requiring that all suits stemming from transactions of any department of the City of Philadelphia be in the name of the City
  16. Section 574.060 - Refusal to disperse - penalty

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.060   Cited 15 times

    1. A person commits the offense of refusal to disperse if, being present at the scene of an unlawful assembly, or at the scene of a riot, he or she knowingly fails or refuses to obey the lawful command of a law enforcement officer to depart from the scene of such unlawful assembly or riot. 2. The offense of refusal to disperse is a class C misdemeanor. § 574.060, RSMo Amended by 2014 Mo. Laws, SB 491,s A, eff. 1/1/2017. L. 1977 S.B. 60 Effective 1-1-79