Krout v. Goemmer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that five minutes was “a period which a jury could find sufficient to afford the onlooking officers an opportunity to intervene”
• ruling that, under clearly established law, (1) state actor may be liable if he fails to intervene to prevent unconstitutional use of excessive force by another, and (2
• ruling that, under clearly established law, (1) state actor may be liable if he fails to intervene to prevent unconstitutional use of excessive force by another, and (2
• concluding there was no criminal recklessness when an officer waited four minutes for medical professionals to arrive rather than performing CPR himself
• explaining that to prove a claim of deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs, the plaintiff must show that the officers “actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, [the inmate’s] medical needs”
• holding the evidence insufficient to demonstrate deliberate indifference to detainees medical care, therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity without an analysis of whether the detainees rights were clearly established

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).