No. 23-331
James Doe v. Gladys Pisani, et al.
Tags: abuse-of-discretion disputed-facts interlocutory-appeal jury-trial material-facts probable-cause qualified-immunity summary-judgment
Latest Conference:
2024-01-05
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that "arguable probable cause" can support a claim for qualified immunity on summary judgment after the District Court denied an interlocutory appeal because there were disputed issues of material fact requiring a jury trial.
Whether a Court of Appeals should be required to evaluate factual findings in interlocutory appeals denying summary judgment based qualified immunity under the abuse of discretion standards, rather than a de novo standard.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that 'arguable probable cause' can support a claim for qualified-immunity,summary-judgment,interlocutory-appeal,disputed-facts,jury-trial
Docket Entries
2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-12-06
Brief of respondents Gladys Pisani, et al. in opposition filed.
2023-10-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including December 6, 2023.
2023-10-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 30, 2023 to December 13, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-09-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 30, 2023)
Attorneys
Gladys Pisani, et al.
Thomas R. Gerarde — Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Respondent
James Doe
Norman A. Pattis — Pattis & Smith, LLC, Petitioner