630 F. Supp. 2d 1305 - Mann v. Darden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As to each incident, Darden could be immune from suit for battery under Alabama law if he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he was engaged in a ‘discretionary function’ as a police officer. “As a matter of law, if Darden had arguable ‘probable cause’ to seize Mann, then he was engaged in a ‘discretionary function’ (and will be entitled to immunity). ‘Probable cause’ means that the circumstances existed such that a reasonable police officer would have concluded that Mann violated the law or was an imminent danger to another person. ‘Arguable’ means that reasonable officers in the same circumstances could reasonably disagree about the existence of probable cause. “However, if a reasonable police officer, even though he may have had arguable probable cause, would have known that the physical force used against Mann, considering all of the circumstances, was excessive, then Darden was not acting in a ‘discretionary function’ (and will not be entitled to immunity). Under Alabama law, a police officer can be privileged to use force in making a lawful seizure, but a police officer may not use a greater force than necessary to effect the seizure. “If Darden proves that he was engaged in a ‘discretionary function,’ he nonetheless is not entitled to immunity if Mann proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith, beyond his authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 670 F. Supp. 2d 1293 - Mann v. Darden