Quinn v. Young

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting a “generalized approach to clearly- established-law analysis” and concluding the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden “of identifying cases that constitute clearly established law on these facts” for a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim
• where plaintiffs had failed to carry burden of identifying cases that constituted clearly established law, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity
• “We must scrupulously adhere to our longstanding duty to ascertain clear law (clear answers) that would apply to the situation at hand.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Plaintiffs have not directed us to any clearly established law involving such sting operations or an analogous law-enforcement setting, nor did the district court rely on any such law. This caselaw void is significant and ultimately determinative....”
• high-level Fourth Amendment principles are generally unhelpful for clearly established analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).