No. 20-353
J. H., By Conservator, Betty Harris v. Williamson County, Tennessee, et al.
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process fair-warning hope-v-pelzer qualified-immunity reasonable-standard state-actor
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment Punishment
SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment Punishment
Latest Conference:
2020-11-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is Hope v. Pelzer dead in the Court's analysis of qualified-immunity?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Is Hope v. Pelzer dead in the Court’s analysis of qualified immunity? If Hope v. Pelzer is dead, the lower courts, the federal court bar, and the legislative bodies must know so that they can further define the parameters of immunity judicially and legislatively. 2. If Hope v. Pelzer is not dead, this Court must define when other authorities, such as statutes, policies, administrative orders, and published professional opinions establish that a reasonable state actor defendant had “fair warning” that his conduct was unconstitutional.
Docket Entries
2020-11-16
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
2020-10-12
Brief of respondents Williamson County, Tennessee, et al. in opposition filed.
2020-09-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 16, 2020)
Attorneys
Betty Harris
Larry L. Crain — Crain Law Group, Petitioner
Williamson County, Tennessee, et al.
Elisabeth McGhee Carson — Buerger, Moseley & Carson, PLC, Respondent