Burguieres v. Sanders
Citations
- 111 La. 109
- 35 So. 478
Syllabus
<p>TAXATION—CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—SUPREME COURT—JURISDICTION.</p> <p>1. The scheme of taxation for drainage purposes authorized by article 281 of the Constitution, Act No. 5, p. 7, of 1899 (Ex. Sess.), and Act No. 12, p. 12, of 1900, is not repugnant to the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the prerequisites to local assessments established by Act No. 48, p. 51, of 1S98, have no place therein.</p> <p>2. The appellate jurisdiction of this court attaches in this case only by reason of the fact that there is a question of the constitutionality and legality of a tax presented, and only to the extent necessary to the decision of that question; and other questions, the decision of which is not involved therein or necessary thereto, are not within such jurisdiction.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that because plaintiff had stated a claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, he had also stated claims for battery and gross negligence
- holding that an arrest was justified—and that therefore the plaintiff failed to state a claim for false arrest under Maryland law—because the police officer had probable cause for believing that the plaintiff had committed a misdemeanor in the officer’s presence
- holding in the context of gross negligence claims alleging excessive force that the principle of objective reasonableness articulated in Graham v. Connor controls
- dismissing plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim where plaintiff’s complaint itself established probable cause to conclude that the plaintiff committed the relevant offense
- finding a claim for excessive force where the Plaintiff had a visible medical condition, requested to be handcuffed in front his body, and screamed in pain when handcuffed behind his back
- “Maryland courts construe Article 26 in pari materia with the Fourth Amendment, such that its comparable provisions are essentially equated to the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.