Townsend v. Transit

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that law is “clearly established if decisions from this or other 10 circuits clearly foreshadow a particular ruling on the issue”
• explaining that it “is more likely that using a stun grenade will be considered reasonable if the subject of the search or arrest is known to pose a high risk of violent confrontation”
• explaining that it “is more likely that using a stun grenade will be considered 7 reasonable if the subject of the search or arrest is known to pose a high risk of violent confrontation”
• explaining that we may not review a denial of immunity that presents an unresolved factual dispute, such as when the parties dispute “what occurred, or why an action was taken” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• denying qualified immunity to officers who used stun grenades when there was no suggestion that the arrestee was ready to engage in violence or had immediate access to weapons
• relying in part on a 2010 decision that addressed the clearly established law as of 2005, although the conduct at bar occurred in 2008

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).