Anthony W. Barton v. Mark Norrod and Randy Pack, Individually

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a non- supervisory law enforcement officer present at a scene where other officers are violating a person’s civil rights may have a duty to intervene”
• concluding that an observing officer was entitled to qualified immunity because “there was no clearly established right being violated for which [he] had a duty to intervene and protect”
• concluding that an observing officer was entitled to qualified immunity because \there was no clearly established right being violated for which [he] had a duty to intervene and protect\
• collecting above cases and holding that refusal to comply with extradition procedures did not state a claim under § 1983
• stating that “[o]nce the fugitive is returned to the demanding state, the right to challenge extradition becomes moot: the fugitive is no longer being detained by the asylum state, and so, the legality of his or her detention there is no longer at issue”
• stating that “[o]nce the fugitive is returned to the demanding state, the right to challenge extradition becomes moot: the fugitive is no longer being detained by the asylum state, and so, the legality of his or her detention there is no longer at issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).