Houghton v. Forrest

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that BPD “was created as a state agency, through an act of the General Assembly, and not as a municipal agency”
• holding that a defendant officer acted within the scope of employment in directing other officers to arrest the tort plaintiff, who the defendant believed had been involved in a drug deal
• finding that city police officer was not included in the MTCA’s list of “state personnel” and so could not claim immunity under the MTCA
• “[W]e need not investigate the legislative history of the statutory provision, [where] a plain reading of the statute resolves our questions.”
• police officer's arrest of plaintiff was within the scope of his employment because it was \incident to his general authority as a police officer\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).