Quesinberry v. Rouppasong
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WALLER, Justice:
Petitioners brought actions against respondents alleging, inter alia, respondents violated their constitutional rights in using excessive force to effect them arrest. Recovery was sought under section 1983, Title 42 of the United States Code.1 *591At the close of petitioners’ case, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of respondents.2 The Court of Appeals affirmed. Quesinberry v. Rouppasong, Op. No. 96-UP-158 (S.C.Ct.App. filed May 16, 1996). We granted petitioners a writ of certiorari to review the sole issue of whether the trial judge properly directed verdicts for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Johnson v. GlickCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Kathleen Hansen v. Ronald L. BlackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Palmer v. SandersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Gamble v. International Paper Realty Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers, LLCSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
- Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm CreditSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
- Ecclesiastes Production Ministries v. Outparcel Associates, LLCCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
- Harvey v. StricklandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.