Chambers v. Pennycook

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no requirement of more than de minimus injury to establish excessive force under the Fourth Amendment
• holding that although de minimis injury does not necessarily foreclose an excessive-force claim under the Fourth Amendment, a de minimis use of force does
• holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to consider a motion for summary judgment on the merits notwithstanding a pending interlocutory appeal from a motion denying appointment of counsel
• holding that the use of force during transportation of the detainee to the hospital was merely “gratuitous,” where the detainee did nothing during the trip to warrant the use of force
• holding that an arrestee’s right to be free from excessive force causing more than “de minimis injuries” was clearly established under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person
• explaining that “[t]he governing rule should not turn on . . . unpredictable and fortuitous consequences of an officer’s use of force”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).