Arthur F. Smith, Jr. v. Max Ross

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an officer “can be liable under § 1983 when by his inaction he fails to perform a statutorily imposed duty to enforce the laws equally and fairly” and that “acts of omission are actionable in this context to the same extent as acts of commission”
• finding no conspiracy liability for officer who told 6 plaintiffs he could not protect them from hostile townspeople threatening them with 7 violence
• “[S]tate officials are not entitled to rely on community hostility as an excuse not to protect, by inaction or affirmative conduct, the exercise of fundamental rights.”
• “Acts of omission are actionable in this context to the same extent as are acts of commission”
• “[S]tate officials are not entitled to rely on community hostility as an excuse not to protect, by inaction or affirmative conduct, the exercise of fundamental rights.”
• “law enforcement officer can be liable under § 1983 when by his inaction he fails to perform a statutorily imposed duty to enforce the laws equally and fairly, and thereby denies equal protection”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).