Porter v. Osborn

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 purpose-to-harm standard applied to the “approximately five-minute altercation[,]” which “was obviously fast paced” and “was also quickly evolving and escalating[.]”
• explaining that an official’s deliberate 13 indifference is sufficient to shock the conscience and can support a Fourteenth 14 Amendment claim
• explaining that officers chasing a suspect are generally “reacting to the urgent public safety threat of fleeing motorists in a situation where inaction could be the most dangerous option”
• applying the second standard to a “five-minute altercation” between the suspect and the officer that was “quickly evolving and 28 NAPOUK V. LVMPD escalating, prompting repeated split-second decisions” (internal quotations omitted)
• officer did not identify himself as law enforcement and did not warn suspect before firing
• “[W]hen an officer encounters fast paced circumstances presenting competing public safety obligations, the purpose to harm standard must apply.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).