AND · 42usc1983:x-interlocutory-jurisdiction
Under Johnson v. Jones (515 U.S. 304 (1995)) and Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372 (2007)), a court of appeals on interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity reviews abstract questions of law (taking the district court's assumed facts as true unless blatantly contradicted by the record).
Exact element source
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redressSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [404:516] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| qualified-immunity-appeal/challenge-to-evidence-sufficiency | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 — applied/procedural | |
| qualified-immunity-appeal/district-court-facts-blatantly-contradicted-by-record | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 — applied/procedural |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Collateral-order appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Mitchell v. Forsyth; Johnson v. Jones) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; party: Detention Officer Johnson; Sheriff Glanz (their appeals); subject: party=Detention Officer Johnson; Sheriff Glanz (their appeals) Not an element of the statute: Johnson v. Jones bar on interlocutory review of fact-sufficiency rulings. "not-satisfied" here = no appellate jurisdiction. | qualified-immunity-appeal/challenge-to-evidence-sufficiency | Instead of accepting these facts as true or viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Henderson, Defendants argue Sheriff Glanz had no notice of a risk of assault because there had been no documented instances of inmate-on-inmate assault in the Jail.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [26149:26410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [19245:19385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.We lack jurisdiction over Sheriff Glanz’s interlocutory appeal because it “would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [27363:27529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Because it instéad challenges the district court’s factual determinations, we lack jurisdiction over DO Johnson’s appeal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [22132:22253] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Collateral-order appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Mitchell v. Forsyth; Johnson v. Jones) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; party: Detention Officer Thomas (his appeal); subject: party=Detention Officer Thomas (his appeal) | qualified-immunity-appeal/district-court-facts-blatantly-contradicted-by-record | “Second, when the ‘version of events’ the district court holds a reasonable jury could credit ‘is blatantly contradicted by the record,’ we may assess the case based on our own de novo view of which facts a reasonable jury could accept as true.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [21067:21312] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.These undisputed record facts blatantly contradict the district court’s factual determination that DO Thomas could have been subjectively aware of a substantial risk of bodily harm to Ms. Henderson.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [28197:28395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”
/f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [19245:19385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Under Johnson v. Jones (515 U.S. 304 (1995)) and Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372 (2007)), a court of appeals on interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity reviews abstract questions of law (taking the district court's assumed facts as true unless blatantly contradicted by the record).
interpretation
“Second, when the ‘version of events’ the district court holds a reasonable jury could credit ‘is blatantly contradicted by the record,’ we may assess the case based on our own de novo view of which facts a reasonable jury could accept as true.”
/f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
“Second, when the ‘version of events’ the district court holds a reasonable jury could credit ‘is blatantly contradicted by the record,’ we may assess the case based on our own de novo view of which facts a reasonable jury could accept as true.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [21067:21312] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Under Johnson v. Jones (515 U.S. 304 (1995)) and Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372 (2007)), a court of appeals on interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity reviews abstract questions of law (taking the district court's assumed facts as true unless blatantly contradicted by the record).