Skip to content

White v. Pauly

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
16-67 10th Cir. Not Argued Jan 9, 2017 n/a Per Curiam OT 2016

Holding: The police officer did not violate clearly established law on the record described by the panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which relied for its analysis on too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on January 9, 2017. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
07/11/2016Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2016)
07/19/2016Waiver of right of respondents Daniel T. Pauly, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Pauly, Deceased, et al. to respond filed.
08/03/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.
08/03/2016Response Requested . (Due September 2, 2016)
08/12/2016Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 3, 2016.
10/03/2016Brief of respondents Daniel T. Pauly, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Pauly, Deceased, et al. in opposition filed.
10/17/2016Reply of petitioners Ray White, Michael Mariscal, and Kevin Truesdale. filed.
10/19/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 4, 2016.
11/07/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 10, 2016.
11/14/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.
11/28/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.
12/05/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.
12/27/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.
01/09/2017Petition GRANTED Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. Justice Ginsburg concurring. (Detached Opinion)