Maldonado v. Fontanes

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a consensus of three circuits was sufficient to establish that the killing of a pet was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
• explaining that, because Pearson was an intervening Supreme Court decision, an en banc was not necessary to overrule circuit precedent
• explaining that, because Pearson was an intervening Supreme Court decision, an era banc was not necessary to overrule circuit precedent
• explaining that a qualified immunity requires finding whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right
• explaining that a qualified immunity requires finding whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right
• holding that a mayor’s promulgation of a pet policy, coupled with his presence at a challenged pet raid resulting in their mass extermination, was “insufficient to create the affirmative link necessary for a finding of supervisory liability, even under a theory of deliberate indifference”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).