LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
• Walker v. Sheahan

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
• Purtell v. Mason

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
Walker v. Sheahan, No. 07-2817
In a prisoner's action claiming excessive force, deprivation of access to medical care, and retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to show the widespread practice of the use of excessive force; and 2) the court properly denied additional discovery requests by defendant. However, the case is reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the two year statute of limitations did not apply to some of the claims since the period is tolled while a prisoner completes the administrative grievance process; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of excessive force and inadequate access to medical care; 3) plaintiff's state law claims were not barred by the one year statute of limitations since defendants failed to raise it as a defense; and 4) summary judgment on a retaliation claims was improperly granted since plaintiff had no notice that the adequacy of his evidence was being challenged. Read more...

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
Purtell v. Mason, No. 06-3176
In a civil rights action against a police officer claiming violations of free speech rights and lack of probable cause to make an arrest, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment claim, officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff since his actions qualified as disorderly conduct under Illinois law; 2) tombstone inscriptions in a Halloween display were insulting, but they could not be considered "fighting words" under that doctrine; 3) although the display was protected speech, the officer's mistake about the scope of plaintiffs' constitutional right to ridicule their neighbors was one a reasonable officer might make; and 4) thus, officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Read more...