Fourth Circuit· 6/30/1994
McLenagan v. Karnes
Citations
- 27 F.3d 1002
- 1994 WL 287172
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that officer was entitled to use deadly force when the officer had reason to believe the suspect was armed, although the officer could not confirm that the suspect was armed
- holding that officer had a right to use deadly force when the officer had reason to believe the suspect was armed, although the officer could not confirm that the suspect was armed
- holding that the officer was entitled to use deadly force when the officer had reason to believe the suspect was armed, although the officer could not confirm that the suspect was armed
- stating that regardless of whether probable cause actually exited, officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer \could have . . . believed that his conduct was lawful\
- noting that, there, “a warning might easily have cost the officer his life”
- noting that, there, “a warning might easily have cost the officer his life”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Eleventh, Godbold, Hall, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
63 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Henry v. PurnellFourth Circuit· 2011-07-14· cited 680×
- Amanda Smith v. R. RayFourth Circuit· 2015-03-18· cited 345×
- Hinkle v. City of ClarksburgFourth Circuit· 1996-04-17· cited 296×
- Waterman v. BattonFourth Circuit· 2005-01-03· cited 232×
- Jones v. BuchananFourth Circuit· 2003-04-15· cited 222×
- Anderson v. RussellFourth Circuit· 2001-03-29· cited 193×
- Pinder v. JohnsonFourth Circuit· 1995-05-30· cited 189×
- Penley v. EslingerEleventh Circuit· 2010-05-03· cited 185×
- Henry v. PurnellFourth Circuit· 2007-09-20· cited 181×
- Leona Mullins v. Oscar CyranekSixth Circuit· 2015-11-09· cited 178×
- Carr v. TatangeloEleventh Circuit· 2003-07-23· cited 167×
- Lowery v. StovallFourth Circuit· 1996-08-06· cited 162×
- Hensley Ex Rel. North Carolina v. PriceFourth Circuit· 2017-11-17· cited 159×
- Smith v. CuppSixth Circuit· 2005-12-02· cited 134×
- Melissa Knibbs v. Anthony Momphard, Jr.Fourth Circuit· 2022-03-30· cited 116×
- Brenda S. Park Tony D. Park v. Stephen R. Shiflett Jeff SimmsFourth Circuit· 2001-05-17· cited 115×
- Romeo v. Untalan, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Ronnie C. Untalan Corazon Untalan v. City of LorainSixth Circuit· 2005-12-07· cited 101×
- Smart v. City of WichitaTenth Circuit· 2020-02-26· cited 101×
- Sigman v. Town of Chapel HillFourth Circuit· 1998-12-02· cited 99×
- Hinkle v. The City Of ClarksburgFourth Circuit· 1996-04-17· cited 84×
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court· 1982-06-24· cited 22,846×
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 14,284×
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court· 1987-06-25· cited 12,768×
- Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court· 1985-06-19· cited 8,858×
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social ServicesSupreme Court· 1989-02-22· cited 4,564×
- Tennessee v. GarnerSupreme Court· 1985-03-27· cited 4,272×
- Siegert v. GilleySupreme Court· 1991-05-23· cited 2,725×
- Davis v. SchererSupreme Court· 1984-08-16· cited 2,605×
- Norman Slattery v. Christopher RizzoFourth Circuit· 1991-07-25· cited 171×
- Colby v. BoydenSupreme Court of Virginia· 1991-01-11· cited 114×
- Frazier v. City of NorfolkSupreme Court of Virginia· 1987-11-25· cited 103×
- Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. v. MartinSupreme Court· 1992-10-05· cited 93×
- Mitchell v. RiceFourth Circuit· 1992-01-10· cited 69×
- Pike v. EubankSupreme Court of Virginia· 1956-01-16· cited 51×
Other cases named McLenagan v. Karnes
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.