Bradford v. Long

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the dispute over whether direct violations can satisfy both prongs of the MCRA analysis and concluding that “the better approach” is that the constitutional violation itself cannot satisfy both prongs
• dismissing an IIED claim where plaintiff’s claim “boil[ed] down to [defendant’s] decision not to investigate whether [p]laintiff had been falsely arrested”
• “the constitutional violation itself cannot also serve as the prerequisite threats, intimidation, or coercion under the MCRA”
• “[T]he constitutional violation itself cannot also serve as the prerequisite ‘threats, intimidation, or coercion’ under the MCRA.”
• “Plaintiff cannot rely on the [seizure] as both the constitutional violation and the evidence of threats, intimidation, or coercion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).