• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
43 results

Micah Jessop, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fresno, California, et al.

Docket 19-1021, Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 18, 2020)
Petitioner Micah Jessop, et al.
Respondent City of Fresno, et al.
Other Institute for Justice
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Reply of petitioners Micah Jessop et al - Main Document

Document Micah Jessop, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fresno, California, et al., 19-1021, Reply of petitioners Micah Jessop et al, Main Document (U.S. Apr. 28, 2020)
Respondents nonetheless insist that the Ninth Circuit was right to grant them qualified immunity, because there is no Supreme Court precedent ad- dressing “the specific issue here: whether alleged theft of property [identified in] a valid ...
What matters is that those cases—along with the text, history, and other precedents of the Fourth Amendment, none of which respondents address—establish rules that “apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” United ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioners Micah Jessop et al

Document Micah Jessop, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fresno, California, et al., 19-1021, Reply of petitioners Micah Jessop et al (U.S. Apr. 28, 2020)
Respondents nonetheless insist that the Ninth Circuit was right to grant them qualified immunity, because there is no Supreme Court precedent ad- dressing “the specific issue here: whether alleged theft of property [identified in] a valid ...
What matters is that those cases—along with the text, history, and other precedents of the Fourth Amendment, none of which respondents address—establish rules that “apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” United ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioners Micah Jessop et al - Proof of Service

Document Micah Jessop, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fresno, California, et al., 19-1021, Reply of petitioners Micah Jessop et al, Proof of Service (U.S. Apr. 28, 2020)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 28, 2020, three (3) copies of the REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CERTIORARI in the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:
775 H Street, N.E.
District of Columbia My commission expires April 14, 2022.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioners Micah Jessop et al - Certificate of Word Count

Document Micah Jessop, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fresno, California, et al., 19-1021, Reply of petitioners Micah Jessop et al, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Apr. 28, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion for leave to file amicus brief - Main Document

Document Micah Jessop, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fresno, California, et al., 19-1021, Motion for leave to file amicus brief, Main Document (U.S. Apr. 13, 2020)
Under this Court’s case law, qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasona- ble person would have known.” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, this case shows just how high the barriers to recovery have be- come: the court below held that the Fourth Amend- ment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and sei- zures” from violating “[t]he right of the people to be se- cure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” U.S. Const.
Judicial immun- ity is therefore supported by the rationale of Tenney: members of the Forty-Second Congress surely would have known of this rule and, had they wished to abol- ish it, “would have specifically so provided.” Pierson, 386 U.S. at 555; see Buckley, 509 U.S. at 280 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“the presumed legislative intent not to eliminate traditional immunities is our only justifica- tion for limiting the categorical language of the stat- ute” (quoting Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 498 (1991))).
What followed, however, was a steady slide toward “less deference to statutory language and congres- sional intent, less belief that law is fixed and unchang- ing, and less commitment to the notion that the judi- cial function is a merely mechanical one of ‘finding’ the law.” David Achtenberg, Immunity Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Interpretive Approach and the Search for the Legislative Will, 86 Nw.
This situation could be ameliorated by honoring Congress’s plan in passing Section 1983 and ensuring that immunity determina- tions are guided by “a considered inquiry into the im- munity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it.” Tower, 467 U.S. at 920 (quotation marks omitted).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion for leave to file amicus brief - Proof of Service

Document Micah Jessop, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fresno, California, et al., 19-1021, Motion for leave to file amicus brief, Proof of Service (U.S. Apr. 13, 2020)
I"9-1021 Ix TsB Suprem e @,ourt sf tbe @nfteb btuttg Mrcan Jrssor; BntttaN Astt;tAN,
Ctry op FnESxo, ETAL., CERTIFICATE OF SER\rICE Petition ers, Respondents.
I, Brianne J. Gorod", do hereby declare that on April 13, 2020, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29.5, I have served by first-c1ass mail, postage pre-paid, the Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center as Am.icus Curiae in Support of Petitioners on counsel for each party to the above proceeding as follows: Neal Kumar Katyal Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 Thirteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20004 ne al.katyal@ho ganlovells.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Brianne Counsel for Amicus Curiae
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion for leave to file amicus brief - Certificate of Word Count

Document Micah Jessop, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fresno, California, et al., 19-1021, Motion for leave to file amicus brief, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Apr. 13, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 >>