From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

A.M. ex rel. F.M. v. Acosta

Supreme Court of the United States
May 15, 2017
137 S. Ct. 2151 (2017)

Summary

stating that "if the plaintiff fails to establish either prong of the two-pronged qualified-immunity standard, the defendant prevails on the defense"

Summary of this case from Morales v. Herrera

Opinion

No. 16–984.

05-15-2017

A.M., on Behalf of Her Minor Child, F.M., petitioner, v. Arthur ACOSTA.


Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


Summaries of

A.M. ex rel. F.M. v. Acosta

Supreme Court of the United States
May 15, 2017
137 S. Ct. 2151 (2017)

stating that "if the plaintiff fails to establish either prong of the two-pronged qualified-immunity standard, the defendant prevails on the defense"

Summary of this case from Morales v. Herrera
Case details for

A.M. ex rel. F.M. v. Acosta

Case Details

Full title:A.M., on Behalf of Her Minor Child, F.M., petitioner, v. Arthur ACOSTA.

Court:Supreme Court of the United States

Date published: May 15, 2017

Citations

137 S. Ct. 2151 (2017)
198 L. Ed. 2d 221

Citing Cases

Williams v. Cleveland Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs

If Plaintiff fails to establish either prong, Defendant Lester will prevail on the defense. See A.M. v.…

Tierra Blanca Ranch High Country Youth Program v. Gonzales

Hence, "[a]lthough [the plaintiff] need not show that the very action in question has previously been held…