# Elliott v. Leavitt

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 24, 1997 · 105 F.3d 174

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6944467

## Case

- **Full name:** Dorothy C. ELLIOTT, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III Archie Elliott, Jr., Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III v. Jason LEAVITT, Police Officer for District Heights, MD, and Prince George'S County, Maryland David B. Mitchell, Prince George's County Police Chief Wayne Cheney, Police Officer City Of District Heights, MD Michael Conboy, Police Chief for District Heights, MD, Defendants Dorothy C. ELLIOTT, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III Archie Elliott, Jr., Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III v. Wayne CHENEY, Police Officer, and Jason Leavitt, Police Officer for District Heights, MD Prince George's County, Maryland David B. Mitchell, Prince George's County Police Chief City of District Heights, MD Michael Conboy, Police Chief for District Heights, MD
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 24, 1997
- **Citations:** 105 F.3d 174
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Ervin, Hall, Michael, Motz, Murnaghan, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6944467

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that, under a broad reading of Johnson, “[a]ll plaintiffs need do to receive an automatic trial is simply assert, without any evidence, that ‘the police are lying’ ”
- reversing officer’s police excessive force conviction in case involving intoxicated and violent complaining witness

## Opinion text

ORDER
A member of the Court requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard en bane. *175 A majority of the judges in active service voted that it should not be reheard en banc.
Judges Hall, Murnaghan, Ervin, Michael, and Motz voted for rehearing en banc. Chief Judge Wilkinson, and Judges Russell, Widener, Wilkins, Niemeyer, Hamilton, Luttig, and Williams voted against rehearing en banc.
Chief Judge Wilkinson filed an opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc, in which Judges Russell, Widener, Wilkins, Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams joined. Judge Motz filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which Judges Hall, Murnaghan, Ervin, and Michael joined.
The suggestion for rehearing en banc is hereby denied. Entered at the direction of Chief Judge Wilkinson for the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6944467. Public record. Not legal advice.