Join!  |   Find Us  |   Contact Us  |   Search  |   Home
Services Online Catalog Research Tools Events News About the Library
Welcome to the Hamilton County Law Library, a library serving legal professionals in Hamilton County, Ohio Extend Your Practice with the Hamilton County Law Library's legal research and services
 
    
            Follow HCLawLib on Twitter       
Search our online catalog for print and electronic legal resources.

Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

April 2, 2007

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Constitutional rights - Search and Seizure
 

Ohio Supreme Court
 
No Opinions.
 
First District Court of Appeals
[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
No Opinions.
    
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases
 
Humphrey v. Mabry  (April 2, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0119p-06.pdf
-  This civil rights action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arises out of a traffic stop, forcible seizure at gun point, search and brief restraint of the plaintiff, who was driving a car mistakenly identified by Columbus, Ohio police officers as a wanted car driven by a dangerous, gun-bearing suspect. The plaintiff's complaint alleges that three Columbus police officers and the City of Columbus are liable for violating his constitutional rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures and the use of excessive force. We conclude that Humphrey's complaint sufficiently alleges, and a reasonable jury could find, that Columbus police officers did violate his Fourth Amendment rights. But we also conclude that, because a reasonable officer in the shoes of the individual officer defendants, in the particular circumstances here, could have reasonably believed that his actions were constitutional, we REVERSE the denial of qualified immunity for the three individual officer defendants and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases
 
No Opinions.
WebCite Citation
  OR
Keyword Search:

Daily Case Updates