Jones v. Norton

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is simply “a vehicle through which one may vindicate rights conferred elsewhere in the Constitution or laws of the United States”
• noting that a failure to intervene claim requires an underlying constitutional violation
• noting allegations of excessive force allegedly committed by Officer Norton, Trooper Young, and Deputy Byron
• observing, in the context of amending a pleading, that “we review de novo the legal basis for the finding of futility”
• determining there was no Fourth Amendment violation by a state officer on an Indian reservation when there is no evidence that the officer seized a tribal member
• wherein the Tenth Circuit merely reaffirmed that for failure-to-intervene claims to advance, defendants must have knowledge of an underlying constitutional violation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).