THOMAS LEE MUNSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that failure-to-intervene theory requires indication that bystander “had a realistic opportunity to intervene”
• contrasting Jones with Brown II and noting that Brown II involved an “actively resisting, non-handcuffed arrestee”
• affirming denial of qualified immunity on excessive force claim where reasonable jury could find handcuffed plaintiff not resisting when force was used
• affirming denial of summary judgment on basis of qualified immunity because reasonable jury could conclude defendant officer used significant force after plaintiff had ceased resisting arrest
• first quoting Figueroa v. Mazza, 825 F.3d 89, 106 (2d Cir. 2016; then quoting Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 557 (2d Cir. 1994)
• “[N]o reasonable officer could have believed that he was entitled to use pepper spray gratuitously against a restrained and unresisting arrestee.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).