White v. Pauly
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, n/a on Jan 9, 2017. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion.
Jul 11, 2016Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2016)
Jul 19, 2016Waiver of right of respondents Daniel T. Pauly, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Pauly, Deceased, et al. to respond filed.
Aug 3, 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.
Aug 3, 2016Response Requested . (Due September 2, 2016)
Aug 12, 2016Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 3, 2016.
Oct 3, 2016Brief of respondents Daniel T. Pauly, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Pauly, Deceased, et al. in opposition filed.Oct 17, 2016Reply of petitioners Ray White, Michael Mariscal, and Kevin Truesdale. filed.Oct 19, 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 4, 2016.
Nov 7, 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 10, 2016.
Nov 14, 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.
Nov 28, 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.
Dec 5, 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.
Dec 27, 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.
Jan 9, 2017Petition GRANTED Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. Justice Ginsburg concurring. (Detached Opinion)
Recommended Citation: White v. Pauly, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/white-v-pauly/