In re Liverman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that this court lacked jurisdiction over one of the defendants’ arguments on appeal because “[a]lthough couched in the language of materiality, their argument actually goes to the sufficiency of [the plaintiff’s] evidence”
• underscoring that we may not review on interlocutory appeal “the question whether there is enough evidence in the record for a jury to conclude that certain facts are true”
• noting that the officers’ conduct was unconstitutional despite the 13 “potentially volatile and dangerous situation these deputies confronted”
• noting that analysis must be based upon “objective factors” of a threat and not on 24 officers’ beliefs
• holding that “a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the deputies’ use of force was constitutionally excessive” if an armed suspect did not “turn[] and point[] his gun at them, nor . . . took other actions that would have been objectively threatening”
• concluding deadly force was inappropriate assuming suspect did not “turn[] and point[] his gun at” the police or take “other actions that would have been objectively threatening”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).