holding that police officers sued for “failure to obtain medical treatment” for an arrestee were “exercising judgment with respect to [the plaintiff’s] arrest and performing a discretionary function in the line and scope of their law-enforcement duties within the meaning of § 6-5-338”
How later courts described this case
- holding that police officers sued for “failure to obtain medical treatment” for an arrestee were “exercising judgment with respect to [the plaintiff’s] arrest and performing a discretionary function in the line and scope of their law-enforcement duties within the meaning of § 6-5-338”
- holding that police officers sued for “failure to obtain medical treatment” for arrestee were “exercising judgment with respect to [the plaintiff's] arrest and performing a discretionary function in the line and scope of their law-enforcement duties within the meaning of § 6-5-338.”
- holding that a plaintiff's assault and battery claims against a police officer were barred by collateral estoppel after a federal court, resolving the same plaintiffs § 1983 excessive force claim, determined the police officer’s use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment
- holding that police officers had discretion to determine whether a prisoner was injured before or during an arrest with respect to complying with a policy requiring the officers to take injured prisoners for medical attention
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MURDOCK, Justice
(concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result).
I concur in the result reached by the main opinion in all respects. I concur in all respects with the rationale stated in the *504 main opinion except as to the issue discussed in Part III.A. of the analysis section of the opinion. See Ex parte Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 48 So.3d 621, 630-32 (Ala.2010) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Ex parte Watson, 37 So.3d 752, 765 (Ala.2009) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).