Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Brosseau Vs. Haugen

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 13, 2004

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

54 entries 6 linked 48 unlinked
Show
  1. County of Sacramento Vs. Lewis US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1997
  2. United States Vs. Lanier US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1997
  3. Anderson Vs. Creighton US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1987
  4. Graham Vs. Connor US Supreme Court · May 15, 1989
  5. Harlow Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  6. Siegert Vs. Gilley US Supreme Court · May 23, 1991
  7. Per Curiam Brosseau V. Haugen
    Search
  8. Supreme Court of the United States Rochelle Brosseau V. Kenneth
    Search
  9. of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 339 F. 3d 857 (2003). Following the two-step process set out in Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  10. Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  11. of Appeals recognized, the constitutional question in this case is governed by the principles enunciated in Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  12. U. S. 1 (1985), and Graham v. Connor
    Search
  13. if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted. Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  14. here is no doubt that Graham v. Connor
    Search
  15. s text, are cast at a high level of generality. See Graham v. Connor
    Search
  16. the answer, even without a body of relevant case law. See Hope v. Pelzer
    Search
  17. that there need not be a materially similar case for the right to be clearly established). See also Pace v. Capobianco
    Search
  18. s Fourth Amendment right. Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  19. Ibid . Specifically, Brosseau points us to Cole v. Bone
    Search
  20. F. 2d 1328 (CA8 1993), and Smith v. Freland
    Search
  21. courts found no Fourth Amendment violation when an officer shot a fleeing suspect who presented a risk to others. Cole v. Bone
    Search
  22. Smith v. Freland
    Search
  23. threat to, among others, the officers at the end of the street. Ibid. Haugen points us to Estate of Starks v. Enyart
    Search
  24. are required to view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, Haugen. See Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  25. S. 194 , 201 (2001). Footnote 3 We have no occasion in this case to reconsider our instruction in Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  26. s February 21, 1999, shooting of Haugen. See Cowan ex rel. Estate of Cooper v. Breen
    Search
  27. Pace v. Capobianco
    Search
  28. Scott v. Clay
    Search
  29. McCaslin v. Wilkins
    Search
  30. Abraham v. Raso
    Search
  31. could not have given fair notice to Brosseau and are of no use in the clearly established inquiry. Brosseau v. Haugen
    Search
  32. s decision in Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  33. sense and can sometimes lead to a constitutional decision that is effectively insulated from review, see Bunting v. Mellen
    Search
  34. J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). For these reasons, I think we should reconsider this issue. Brosseau v. Haugen
    Search
  35. Stevens, J., Dissenting Brosseau V. Haugen
    Search
  36. of a constitutional right that has not been clearly established, the qualified immunity defense is available. Harlow v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  37. see also Siegert v. Gilley
    Search
  38. we held that the killing of an unarmed burglar to prevent his escape was an unconstitutional seizure. Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  39. be clearly established is designed to ensure that officers have fair notice of what conduct is proscribed. See Hope v. Pelzer
    Search
  40. this preference does not give judges license to take inherently factual questions away from the jury. See Hunter v. Bryant
    Search
  41. id., Doc. No. 27, Exh. H. Footnote 4 In Cole v. Bone
    Search
  42. Only then did the officer finally resort to deadly force to disable the driver. Similarly, in Smith v. Freland
    Search
  43. Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  44. and Graham v. Connor
    Search
  45. See Graham v. Connor
    Search
  46. See Hope v. Pelzer
    Search
  47. Cole v. Bone
    Search
  48. and Smith v. Freland
    Search
  49. Estate of Starks v. Enyart
    Search
  50. Haugen. See Saucier v. Katz
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial