PodParley PodParley

Mullenix v. Luna - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On November 9, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Mullenix v. Luna without oral argument. The question in this case was whether a police officer who shot at the car of a fleeing and purportedly armed suspect, killing him in the process, was entitled to...

An episode of the SCOTUScast podcast, hosted by The Federalist Society, titled "Mullenix v. Luna - Post-Decision SCOTUScast" was published on November 17, 2015 and runs 15 minutes.

November 17, 2015 ·15m · SCOTUScast

0:00 / 0:00

On November 9, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Mullenix v. Luna without oral argument. The question in this case was whether a police officer who shot at the car of a fleeing and purportedly armed suspect, killing him in the process, was entitled to qualified immunity from suit. The Fifth Circuit had affirmed the lower court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officer. -- By a vote of 8-1 the Supreme Court reversed that determination, holding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because existing Supreme Court precedent did not place the conclusion that the officer acted unreasonably “beyond debate.” -- The opinion of the Court was issued per curiam. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Joshua A. Skinner, who is an Attorney at Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin, P.C., in Dallas, Texas.

On November 9, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Mullenix v. Luna without oral argument. The question in this case was whether a police officer who shot at the car of a fleeing and purportedly armed suspect, killing him in the process, was entitled to qualified immunity from suit. The Fifth Circuit had affirmed the lower court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officer. -- By a vote of 8-1 the Supreme Court reversed that determination, holding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because existing Supreme Court precedent did not place the conclusion that the officer acted unreasonably “beyond debate.” -- The opinion of the Court was issued per curiam. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Joshua A. Skinner, who is an Attorney at Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin, P.C., in Dallas, Texas.

No similar episodes found.

URL copied to clipboard!