Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade v. Public Service Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant acted in bad faith and was “not eligible for state qualified immunity” under Kentucky law because he violated the plaintiff’s “clearly established [federal] constitutional rights”
• finding that Kentucky courts’ findings on ministerial or discretionary acts have differed when the policies grant less discretion
• explaining that Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.090(1) provides Kentucky officers with an “affirmative defense” in excessive force cases
• stating that active resistance includes “refusal or resistance to being handcuffed”
• finding that where a defendant used excessive and objectively unreasonable force in violation of the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, the defendant did not act in good faith and was thus not entitled to qualified official immunity under Kentucky law
• finding that where a defendant used excessive and objectively unreasonable force in violation of the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, the defendant did not act in good faith and was thus not entitled to qualified official immunity under Kentucky law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).