Lanman v. Hinson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[q]ualified immunity is an affirmative defense that, once asserted, shifts the burden of proof to the plaintiff”
• holding that claims against government officials arising from alleged violations of constitutional rights must allege, with particularity, facts that demonstrate that each defendant did to violate the asserted constitutional right
• holding that claims against government officials arising from alleged violations of constitutional rights must allege, with particularity, facts that demonstrate that each defendant did to violate the asserted constitutional right
• requiring that a plaintiff allege facts that demonstrate what each defendant did to violate the asserted constitutional right
• disagreeing that “because [a mental health patient] voluntarily committed himself . . . and was theoretically free to leave at any time, he was not owed any duties under the Fourteenth Amendment”
• explaining that the State owes affirmative duties to individuals involuntarily in its custody

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).