Steverson Davis v. Patrick Brady and Shawn Murphy

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the law did not clearly establish state actors could be liable for private harm to an individual after his release from custody
• concluding that the law did not clearly establish state actors could be liable for private harm to an individual after his release from custody
• holding that officers violated a man’s substantive due process rights by placing him at risk of harm when they abandoned him in an inebriated condition on an unfamiliar highway against his will
• stating that “an officer’s duty exists even after the custodial relationship has ended” and rejecting the officers’ argument that they owed no duty of care to an individual they drove to a dark highway and abandoned, and the individual was subsequently hit by a car and injured
• “A duty to protect can arise in a noncustodial setting if the state does anything to render an individual more vulnerable to danger.”
• “[T]he taking of [plaintiff] into [police] custody triggered the defendant officers’ duty to protect[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).