Citation network
Pearson Vs. Callahan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 21, 2009
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Pearson V. CallahanSearch
-
reasonably have believed that the doctrine authorized their conduct. Following the procedure mandated in Saucier v. KatzSearch
-
id ., at 201. Qualified immunity applies unless the official's conduct violated such a right. Anderson v. CreightonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
particularly appropriate where, as here, a departure would not upset settled expectations, see, e.g., United States v. GaudinSearch
-
judge-made and adopted to improve court operations, not a statute promulgated by Congress, see, e.g., State Oil Co. v. KhanSearch
-
rigid adherence to Saucier departs from the general rule of constitutional avoidance, cf., e.g., Scott v. HarrisSearch
-
decline to mandate the order of decision that the lower courts must follow, see, e.g., Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
on these cases, even though their own Federal Circuit had not yet ruled on consent-once-removed entries. See Wilson v. LayneSearch
-
F. 3d 891, reversed. Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Pearson v. CallahanSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Pearson V. CallahanSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-751 Cordell Pearson, Et Al., Petitioners V. AftonSearch
-
were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Following the procedure we mandated in Saucier v. KatzSearch
-
s conviction. See State v. CallahanSearch
-
alleging that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment by entering his home without a warrant. See Callahan v. MillardSearch
-
contraband in plain view. Believing that this doctrine was in tension with our intervening decision in Georgia v. RandolphSearch
-
s Fourth Amendment rights. Callahan v. MillardSearch
-
U. S. 551 , 567 (2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citing Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
s part. See United States v. GaudinSearch
-
See, e.g. , Purtell v. MasonSearch
-
And application of the rule has not always been enthusiastic. See Higazy v. TempletonSearch
-
Cherrington v. SkeeterSearch
-
Pearson v. RamosSearch
-
Members of this Court have also voiced criticism of the Saucier rule. See Morse v. FrederickSearch
-
Bunting v. MellenSearch
-
see also Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Lyons v. XeniaSearch
-
the constitutional question is so fact-bound that the decision provides little guidance for future cases. See Scott v. HarrisSearch
-
Buchanan v. MaineSearch
-
damages action or a Bivens v. SixSearch
-
Motley v. ParksSearch
-
cases in which resolution of the constitutional question requires clarification of an ambiguous state statute. Egolf v. WitmerSearch
-
accord, Tremblay v. McClellanSearch
-
Ehrlich v. GlastonburySearch
-
Kwai Fun Wong v. UnitedSearch
-
Mollica v. VolkerSearch
-
this situation. Dirrane v. BrooklineSearch
-
see also Robinette v. JonesSearch
-
not devote as much care as it would in other circumstances to the decision of the constitutional issue. See Horne v. CoughlinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial