Randall v. Peaco

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 standard for analyzing excessive force claims under Maryland state law is the same for analyzing Fourth Amendment claims (cleaned up)
• noting that this Court “squarely rejected the notion that the reasonableness of the use of lethal force must involve consideration of antecedent events that would at best involve a hindsight evaluation of the officer’s conduct”
• explaining that claims pursuant to Maryland Declaration of Rights Articles 24 and 26 are “assessed under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, rather than notions of substantive due process, precisely like the analysis employed for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
• explaining that claims pursuant to Maryland Declaration of Rights Articles 24 and 26 are “assessed under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, rather than notions of substantive due process, precisely like the analysis employed for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
• Article 24 is “Maryland’s analogue to the Fourteenth Amendment” while Article 26 is “Maryland’s analogue to the Fourth Amendment”
• a “claim is assessed under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, rather than notions of substantive due process....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).