Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Mary Elizabeth Dunn v. Mike Denk, Cross-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided March 19, 1996No. 93-1964, 93-9066PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge,
joined by E. GRADY JOLLY, EDITH H. JONES, JERRY E. SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
“Even if [Officer Denk’s] conduct violates a constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified *404immunity if [his] conduct was objectively reasonable.” Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d 299, 310 (5th Cir.1992); Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1301 (5th Cir.1995) (en banc); Spann v. Rainey, 987 F.2d 1110, 1114 (5th Cir.1993). This factor is “assessed in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time” of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Hudson v. McMillianSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Salas v. CarpenterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- James Johnson, Jr. v. D. MorelCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Joseph Walton, as Next Friend of Christopher Walton, a Minor v. Alma Alexander, Alma AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mary Elizabeth Dunn v. Mike Denk, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996