|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - January 21, 2009
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 21, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Like rules governing procedures and the admission of evidence in the trial courts, Saucier's two-step protocol did not affect the way in which parties ordered their affairs. Withdrawing from Saucier's categorical rule would not have upset settled expectations on anyone's part. Nor did the matter implicate the general presumption that legislative changes should be left to Congress. The Court concluded that, while the Saucier sequence was often appropriate, it was no longer to be regarded as mandatory. The judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals were permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand. Adherence to Saucier's two-step protocol departed from the general rule of constitutional avoidance and ran counter to the older, wiser judicial counsel not to pass on questions of constitutionality unless such adjudication was unavoidable. Turning to the conduct of the officers at issue, the Court held that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the entry did not violate clearly established law.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
