Head-to-head
Christopher Zook v. Scott Fuqua vs. Michael Mendenhall v. City and County of Denver, Colorado vs. Richard Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1108Christopher Zook v. Scott FuquaBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1205Michael Mendenhall v. City and County of Denver, ColoradoBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1246Richard Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions DivisionBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Christopher Zook v. Scott Fuqua
- 1. Whether a district court may, or must, consider objective video evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage when that evidence is central to the complaint and blatantly contradicts or utterly discredits the allegations of a plaintiff's complaint in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action, given a circuit split between the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits (which permit consideration of such videos) and the Tenth Circuit (which does not)? 2. Whether a § 1983 plaintiff can satisfy the plausibility standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), by strategically omitting known facts, here, that the decedent fled the police in a reckless manner by vehicle, fired a weapon at officers just prior to being shot, and was running toward an occupied civilian vehicle at the time of the shooting, when including those facts would defeat the claim? 3. Whether Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), standing alone, clearly establishes a Fourth Amendment violation sufficient to defeat qualified immunity at the pleading stage in a factually complex officer-involved shooting in which the decedent had moments earlier fired a weapon at officers, ignored repeated commands, and fled toward an occupied civilian vehicle, contrary to this Court's repeated instructions that clearly established law must be defined with specificity and particularity to the facts of the case?
- Michael Mendenhall v. City and County of Denver, Colorado
- Should this Court overrule Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960) and hold that the Fourth Amendment prohibits courts from issuing warrants based on hearsay?
- Richard Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
- 1. Does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) impose a “reasonable attorney” or a “reasonable applicant” test for due diligence? If the former, are there exceptions to account for egregious misconduct by an applicant’s lawyer? 2. Would construing the AEDPA to bar merits review in a capital case of a substantial IAC claim, one not previously reviewed on the merits by any court, violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? 3. When an applicant is unaware of the relevant facts when he files a first-in-time application for habeas relief, are later-filed Brady and Napue/Giglio claim “second or successive”? 4. Is a court reviewing a federal habeas application, as a matter of due process or otherwise, required to resolve disputes over authority to speak for the State? What level of deference is owed to the State’s position expressed by an authorized representative?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.