top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: October 18

  • Oct 18, 2025
  • 1 min read

Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1 (decided October 18, 2021): plaintiff sued under §1983 for excessive force; Court held that police officer who put knee in his back after he was already on the ground was entitled to qualified immunity (plaintiff had threatened and cornered wife and children in house, came out at command of police with knife in his pocket, and officer briefly placed his knee on plaintiff’s back when handcuffing him and removing his knife); unanimous per curiam decision (this lawsuit was a new definition of “chutzpah”)


Bergere v. United States, 168 U.S. 66 (decided October 18, 1897): this decision on grants of land under a contested Will in the New Mexico territory presents a riot of law school issues, e.g., whether cattle grazing amounts to adverse possession, whether a torn document is an enforceable contract, to what extent the Court will apply the law of Mexico and Spain that were in effect at the time and place in question, whether delivery of land by alcalde (mayor) binds the governor, and more


James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36 (decided October 18, 1965): search of drug arrestee’s home two blocks from where he was arrested was not a “search incident to arrest” and therefore evidence seized there was inadmissible

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: March 27

United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542 (decided March 27, 1876): The Constitution does not guarantee a right to peacefully assemble, nor a right to bear arms; it merely prevents those rights from b

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 26

Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (decided March 26, 1962): federal courts have jurisdiction over suits alleging disproportionate redistricting in violation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection (on rem

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 25

United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. , 572 U.S. 141 (decided March 25, 2014): must withhold FICA from severance pay because it’s “wages” (?) Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society , 503 U.S. 429 (decid

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page