The Thomas J. Cleaver v. McNally

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that we “ha[ve] chosen to view an ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ claim under the general excessive force rubric”
• holding that it was an abuse of discretion for a district court to bifurcate trial and to exclude from the damages trial evidence of physical and psychological injuries that did not appear immediately after the alleged use of excessive force
• reversing grant of qualified immunity where plaintiff complained in the back of the police car and later in a holding cell that his hands were becoming numb and the officer ignored his complaints
• reversing exclusion of evidence regarding subsequent medical examination in excessive force case
• overly tight application of handcuffs despite protestations of plaintiff can state excessive force claim
• though amount of force used was allegedly greater than in instant case, stating that overly tight handcuffing constitutes excessive force

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).