York v. City of Las Cruces

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a “court should not adopt” a version of the facts when “blatantly contradicted by the record” (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007))
• reporting that clearly established law \does not mean that there must be a published case involving identical facts; otherwise we would be required to find qualified immunity wherever we have a new fact pattern\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that clearly established law “does not mean that there must be a published case involving identical facts; otherwise we would be required to find qualified immunity whenever we have a new fact pattern” (quotations omitted)
• “[W]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts[.]”
• blatant-contradiction exception inapplicable where audio recording captured “only part of the incident”
• “As with any motion for summary judgment, ‘[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts[.]’” (alterations in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).