wyatt
cole
argued
january
decided
may
assistance
respondent
robbins
attorney
respondent
cole
filed
complaint
mississippi
replevin
statute
partner
petitioner
wyatt
cole
refused
comply
state
order
return
wyatt
property
seized
statute
wyatt
brought
suit
federal
district
challenging
state
statute
constitutionality
seeking
injunctive
relief
damages
among
things
held
statute
unconstitutional
assumed
cole
subject
liability
lugar
edmondson
oil
ruled
private
defendants
invoking
state
replevin
garnishment
attachment
statutes
later
declared
unconstitutional
act
color
state
law
liability
purposes
also
intimated
decide
whether
robbins
subject
liability
however
lugar
left
open
question
whether
private
defendants
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
cases
see
district
held
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
least
conduct
arising
prior
replevin
statute
invalidation
appeals
affirmed
grant
qualified
immunity
respondents
without
revisiting
question
liability
held
qualified
immunity
suit
enunciated
respect
government
officials
available
private
defendants
charged
liability
invoking
state
replevin
garnishment
attachment
statutes
immunity
private
defendants
firmly
rooted
common
law
supported
strong
policy
reasons
create
inference
congress
meant
incorporate
see
owen
city
independence
even
sufficient
common
law
support
conclude
private
defendants
entitled
good
faith
probable
cause
defense
suits
unjustified
harm
arising
misuse
governmental
processes
still
entitle
respondents
obtained
courts
type
objectively
determined
immediately
appealable
qualified
immunity
suit
accorded
government
officials
harlow
fitzgerald
mitchell
forsyth
moreover
policy
concerns
mandating
qualified
immunity
officials
cases
need
preserve
officials
ability
perform
discretionary
functions
ensure
talented
candidates
deterred
threat
damages
suits
entering
public
service
applicable
private
parties
although
may
private
defendants
faced
liability
lugar
supra
entitled
affirmative
good
faith
defense
suits
private
rather
governmental
parties
require
plaintiffs
carry
additional
burdens
issues
neither
decided
pp
remand
must
determined
least
whether
respondents
invoking
replevin
statute
acted
color
state
law
within
meaning
lugar
supra
delivered
opinion
white
blackmun
stevens
scalia
kennedy
joined
kennedy
filed
concurring
opinion
scalia
joined
post
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
souter
thomas
joined
post
jim
waide
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
douglas
magee
alan
morrison
joseph
leray
mcnamara
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondents
justice
delivered
opinion
lugar
edmondson
oil
left
open
question
whether
private
defendants
charged
liability
invoking
state
replevin
garnishment
attachment
statutes
later
declared
unconstitutional
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
hold
dispute
arises
soured
cattle
partnership
july
respondent
bill
cole
sought
dissolve
partnership
petitioner
howard
wyatt
agreement
reached
cole
assistance
attorney
respondent
john
robbins
ii
filed
state
complaint
replevin
wyatt
accompanied
replevin
bond
time
mississippi
law
provided
individual
obtain
order
seizure
property
possessed
another
posting
bond
swearing
state
applicant
entitled
property
adversary
wrongfully
took
detain
ed
wrongfully
detain
ed
property
miss
ch
statute
gave
judge
discretion
deny
writ
replevin
cole
presented
complaint
bond
ordered
county
sheriff
seize
head
cattle
tractor
certain
personal
property
wyatt
several
months
later
postseizure
hearing
dismissed
cole
complaint
replevin
ordered
property
returned
wyatt
cole
refused
comply
wyatt
brought
suit
federal
district
challenging
constitutionality
statute
seeking
injunctive
relief
damages
respondents
county
sheriff
deputies
involved
seizure
district
held
statute
failure
afford
judges
discretion
deny
writs
replevin
violated
due
process
sd
miss
dismissed
suit
government
officials
involved
seizure
ground
entitled
qualified
immunity
app
also
held
cole
robbins
even
otherwise
liable
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
conduct
arising
prior
statute
invalidation
appeals
fifth
circuit
affirmed
district
grant
qualified
immunity
private
defendants
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
among
courts
appeals
whether
private
defendants
threatened
liability
like
certain
government
officials
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
like
fifth
circuit
eighth
eleventh
circuits
determined
private
defendants
entitled
qualified
immunity
see
buller
buechler
jones
preuit
mauldin
en
banc
vacated
grounds
first
ninth
circuits
however
held
certain
circumstances
private
parties
acting
color
state
law
entitled
immunity
see
downs
sawtelle
cert
denied
conner
santa
ana
cert
denied
nowerton
gabica
sixth
circuit
rejected
qualified
immunity
private
defendants
sued
established
good
faith
defense
duncan
peck
ii
title
provides
cause
action
person
color
statute
state
subjects
causes
subjected
citizen
deprivation
rights
privileges
immunities
secured
constitution
laws
purpose
deter
state
actors
using
badge
authority
deprive
individuals
federally
guaranteed
rights
provide
relief
victims
deterrence
fails
carey
piphus
lugar
edmondson
oil
supra
considered
scope
liability
context
garnishment
prejudgment
attachment
replevin
statutes
case
held
private
parties
attached
debtor
assets
pursuant
state
attachment
statute
subject
liability
statute
constitutionally
infirm
noting
garnishment
prejudgment
attachment
replevin
cases
established
private
use
state
laws
secure
property
constitute
state
action
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
held
private
defendants
invoking
attachment
statute
act
color
state
law
within
meaning
actions
fairly
attributable
state
requirement
satisfied
held
two
conditions
met
first
deprivation
must
caused
exercise
right
privilege
created
state
rule
conduct
imposed
state
person
state
responsible
ibid
second
private
party
must
acted
together
obtained
significant
aid
state
officials
engaged
conduct
otherwise
chargeable
state
ibid
found
potential
liability
lugar
attachment
scheme
created
state
private
defendants
invoking
aid
state
officials
attach
disputed
property
willful
participant
joint
activity
state
agents
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
citing
lugar
district
assumed
cole
invoking
state
statute
acted
color
state
law
within
meaning
therefore
liable
damages
deprivation
wyatt
due
process
rights
app
respect
robbins
noted
action
taken
attorney
representing
client
normally
constitute
act
color
state
law
attorney
still
person
may
conspire
act
color
state
law
depriving
another
secured
rights
determine
whether
robbins
liable
however
held
cole
robbins
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
least
conduct
prior
statute
invalidation
although
appeals
review
whether
first
instance
cole
robbins
acted
color
state
law
within
meaning
affirmed
district
grant
qualified
immunity
respondents
appeals
followed
one
prior
cases
folsom
investment
moore
held
defendant
invoked
attachment
statute
entitled
immunity
monetary
liability
long
neither
knew
reasonably
known
statute
unconstitutional
folsom
based
holding
two
grounds
first
viewed
existence
common
law
probable
cause
defense
torts
malicious
prosecution
wrongful
attachment
evidence
congress
enacting
intended
subject
liability
good
faith
resorted
legal
process
although
acknowledged
defense
immunity
maintained
transfor
common
law
defense
extant
time
passage
immunity
ibid
second
held
immunity
private
parties
derived
official
immunity
based
important
public
interest
permitting
ordinary
citizens
rely
presumptively
valid
state
laws
shielding
citizens
monetary
damages
reasonably
resort
legal
process
later
held
unconstitutional
protecting
private
citizen
liability
role
unconstitutional
action
marginal
defending
decision
respondents
advance
arguments
put
forward
appeals
folsom
neither
availing
iii
section
creates
species
tort
liability
face
admits
immunities
imbler
pachtman
nonetheless
accorded
certain
government
officials
either
absolute
qualified
immunity
suit
tradition
immunity
firmly
rooted
common
law
supported
strong
policy
reasons
congress
specifically
provided
wished
abolish
doctrine
owen
city
independence
quoting
pierson
ray
parties
seeking
immunity
shielded
tort
liability
congress
enacted
civil
rights
act
codified
infer
legislative
silence
congress
intend
abrogate
immunities
imposed
liability
actions
taken
color
state
law
see
tower
glover
imbler
supra
pulliam
allen
additionally
irrespective
common
law
support
recognize
immunity
available
common
law
history
purpose
counsel
applying
actions
tower
supra
see
also
imbler
supra
determining
whether
immunity
common
law
congress
intended
incorporate
civil
rights
act
look
closely
analogous
torts
case
malicious
prosecution
abuse
process
common
law
torts
provided
causes
action
private
defendants
unjustified
harm
arising
misuse
governmental
processes
addison
law
torts
cooley
law
torts
bishop
commentaries
law
pp
respondents
contend
private
parties
instituted
attachment
proceedings
subsequently
sued
malicious
prosecution
abuse
process
entitled
absolute
immunity
good
reason
although
public
prosecutors
judges
accorded
absolute
immunity
common
law
imbler
pachtman
supra
protection
extend
complaining
witnesses
like
respondents
set
wheels
government
motion
instigating
legal
action
malley
briggs
generally
accepted
rule
one
procured
issuance
arrest
warrant
submitting
complaint
held
liable
complaint
made
maliciously
without
probable
cause
nonetheless
respondents
argue
common
law
private
defendants
defeat
malicious
prosecution
abuse
process
action
acted
without
malice
probable
cause
therefore
infer
congress
intend
abrogate
defenses
enacted
civil
rights
act
adopted
similar
reasoning
pierson
ray
held
police
officers
sued
false
arrest
entitled
defense
acted
probable
cause
good
faith
making
arrest
statute
reasonably
believed
valid
recognized
defense
peace
officers
accorded
protection
liability
common
law
arrested
individual
good
faith
even
innocence
person
later
established
ibid
rationale
adopted
pierson
avail
respondents
even
sufficient
common
law
support
conclude
respondents
like
police
officers
pierson
entitled
good
faith
defense
still
entitle
sought
obtained
courts
qualified
immunity
suit
accorded
government
officials
harlow
fitzgerald
harlow
altered
standard
qualified
immunity
adopted
prior
cases
recognized
subjective
element
good
faith
defense
frequently
prove
incompatible
admonition
insubstantial
claims
proceed
trial
attendant
harms
government
effectiveness
caused
lengthy
judicial
inquiry
subjective
motivation
concluded
bare
allegations
malice
suffice
subject
government
officials
either
costs
trial
burdens
discovery
accordingly
held
government
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
shielded
liability
civil
damages
insofar
conduct
violate
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
wholly
objective
standard
concluded
avoid
excessive
disruption
government
permit
resolution
many
insubstantial
claims
summary
judgment
ibid
harlow
completely
reformulated
qualified
immunity
along
principles
embodied
common
law
anderson
creighton
reinforced
decision
mitchell
forsyth
mitchell
held
harlow
established
immunity
suit
rather
mere
defense
liability
like
absolute
immunity
effectively
lost
case
erroneously
permitted
go
trial
emphasis
supplied
thus
held
mitchell
denial
qualified
immunity
immediately
appealable
type
objectively
determined
immediately
appealable
immunity
respondents
asserted
precedents
make
clear
reasons
recognizing
immunity
based
simply
existence
good
faith
defense
common
law
special
policy
concerns
involved
suing
government
officials
harlow
supra
mitchell
supra
reviewing
concerns
conclude
rationales
mandating
qualified
immunity
public
officials
applicable
private
parties
qualified
immunity
strikes
balance
compensating
injured
official
conduct
protecting
government
ability
perform
traditional
functions
harlow
supra
pierson
supra
anderson
supra
accordingly
recognized
qualified
immunity
government
officials
necessary
preserve
ability
serve
public
good
ensure
talented
candidates
deterred
threat
damages
suits
entering
public
service
see
wood
strickland
denial
qualified
immunity
school
board
officials
contribute
principled
fearless
decisionmaking
intimidation
quoting
pierson
supra
butz
economou
immunity
presidential
aides
warranted
partly
protect
officials
required
exercise
discretion
related
public
interest
encouraging
vigorous
exercise
official
authority
mitchell
supra
immunity
designed
prevent
distraction
officials
governmental
duties
inhibition
discretionary
action
deterrence
able
people
public
service
quoting
harlow
supra
short
qualified
immunity
recognized
harlow
acts
safeguard
government
thereby
protect
public
large
benefit
agents
rationales
transferable
private
parties
although
principles
equality
fairness
may
suggest
respondents
argue
private
citizens
rely
unsuspectingly
state
laws
create
may
reason
believe
invalid
protection
liability
government
counterparts
interests
sufficiently
similar
traditional
purposes
qualified
immunity
justify
expansion
unlike
school
board
members
see
wood
supra
police
officers
see
malley
briggs
presidential
aides
see
butz
supra
private
parties
hold
office
requiring
exercise
discretion
principally
concerned
enhancing
public
good
accordingly
extending
harlow
qualified
immunity
private
parties
bearing
whether
public
officials
able
act
forcefully
decisively
jobs
whether
qualified
applicants
enter
public
service
moreover
unlike
government
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
public
interest
unduly
impaired
private
individuals
required
proceed
trial
resolve
legal
disputes
short
nexus
private
parties
historic
purposes
qualified
immunity
simply
attenuated
justify
extension
doctrine
immunity
reasons
offer
relief
today
question
granted
certiorari
narrow
one
hether
private
persons
conspire
state
officials
violate
constitutional
rights
available
good
faith
immunity
applicable
public
officials
pet
cert
precise
issue
encompassed
question
issue
decided
lower
courts
whether
qualified
immunity
enunciated
harlow
available
private
defendants
faced
liability
invoking
state
replevin
garnishment
attachment
statute
answer
holding
however
foreclose
possibility
private
defendants
faced
liability
lugar
edmondson
oil
entitled
affirmative
defense
based
good
faith
probable
cause
suits
private
rather
governmental
parties
require
plaintiffs
carry
additional
burdens
issues
fairly
us
however
leave
another
day
cf
yee
escondido
iv
indicated
district
assumed
lugar
edmondson
oil
supra
cole
liable
invoking
state
replevin
bond
statute
intimated
decide
whether
robbins
also
subject
liability
appeals
never
revisited
question
instead
concluded
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
least
conduct
prior
statute
invalidation
overturn
judgment
must
remand
since
remains
determined
least
whether
cole
robbins
invoking
replevin
statute
acted
color
state
law
within
meaning
lugar
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
arguing
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
harlow
fitzgerald
dissent
mixes
apples
oranges
even
agree
dissent
proposition
elements
plaintiff
required
prove
part
case
chief
somehow
construed
defense
post
defense
entitles
private
citizens
protection
liability
agree
respondents
entitled
immunity
suit
harlow
one
reasonably
infer
fact
plaintiff
malicious
prosecution
abuse
process
action
failed
affirmatively
establish
malice
want
probable
cause
plaintiffs
bringing
analogous
suit
required
make
similar
showing
sustain
cause
action
alternatively
one
accepts
dissent
characterization
common
law
establishing
affirmative
defense
private
defendants
one
also
conclude
private
parties
sued
likewise
entitled
assert
affirmative
defense
based
similar
showing
good
faith
probable
cause
neither
case
however
appropriate
make
dissent
leap
common
law
torts
partially
included
objective
component
probable
cause
private
defendants
sued
entitled
objectively
determined
immediately
appealable
immunity
suit
accorded
certain
government
officials
harlow
justice
kennedy
justice
scalia
joins
concurring
join
opinion
find
separate
statement
views
required
agree
chief
justice
writes
dissent
respecting
historical
origins
qualified
immunity
jurisprudence
submit
question
presented
us
requires
reverse
judgment
majority
holds
indeed
result
reached
quite
consistent
view
proper
application
history
chief
justice
relates
dissent
recognize
original
decisions
recognizing
defenses
immunities
suits
brought
rely
analogous
limitations
existing
common
law
enacted
see
ante
post
tenney
brandhove
held
eradicated
absolute
immunity
granted
legislators
common
law
pierson
ray
recognized
police
officers
sued
false
arrest
available
described
defense
good
faith
probable
cause
based
reasonable
belief
statute
acted
constitutional
pierson
allowed
defense
respect
analogous
common
law
tort
decided
officers
available
similar
defense
defense
evolved
modern
qualified
immunity
doctrine
ante
immunity
doctrine
rooted
historical
analogy
based
existence
common
law
rules
rather
freewheeling
policy
choice
malley
briggs
cases
involving
absolute
immunity
adhere
view
granting
immunity
extent
consistent
historical
practice
ibid
burns
reed
hafer
melo
context
qualified
immunity
public
officials
however
diverged
substantial
degree
historical
standards
harlow
fitzgerald
completely
reformulated
qualified
immunity
along
principles
embodied
common
law
replacing
inquiry
subjective
malice
frequently
required
common
law
objective
inquiry
legal
reasonableness
official
action
anderson
creighton
transformation
justified
special
policy
concerns
arising
public
officials
exposure
repeated
suits
harlow
supra
ante
dissent
today
case
argues
similar
considerations
justify
transformation
common
law
standards
context
private
party
defendants
post
agree
need
decide
whether
appropriate
harlow
depart
history
name
public
policy
reshaping
immunity
doctrines
light
policy
considerations
extend
approach
contexts
harlow
decided
time
standards
applicable
summary
judgment
made
difficult
defendant
secure
summary
judgment
regarding
factual
question
subjective
intent
even
plaintiff
bore
burden
proof
question
harlow
relied
fact
adopting
objective
standard
qualified
immunity
however
subsequent
clarifications
summary
judgment
law
alleviated
problem
allowing
summary
judgment
entered
nonmoving
party
fails
make
showing
sufficient
establish
existence
element
essential
party
case
party
bear
burden
proof
trial
celotex
catrett
principles
set
forth
celotex
related
cases
strength
factual
allegations
subjective
bad
faith
tested
stage
must
remembered
unlike
common
law
judges
whose
doctrines
adopt
devising
limitations
remedial
statute
enacted
congress
face
provide
immunities
malley
supra
emphasis
original
imported
common
law
doctrines
past
conclusion
congress
enacted
acted
light
existing
legal
principles
owen
city
independence
suggests
however
may
transform
existed
common
law
based
notions
policy
efficiency
conclusions
mere
consequence
historical
principles
described
dissent
chief
justice
common
law
tort
actions
analogous
action
commenced
malicious
prosecution
abuse
process
post
common
law
actions
essential
plaintiff
prove
wrongdoer
acted
malice
without
probable
cause
post
chief
justice
something
misnomer
describe
common
law
creating
defense
fact
concerned
essence
wrong
essential
elements
tort
malice
element
required
plaintiff
show
challenged
action
undertaken
unlawful
purpose
though
require
showing
towards
plaintiff
bishop
commentaries
law
establish
absence
probable
cause
plaintiff
required
prove
reasonable
person
knowing
defendant
believed
prosecution
suit
wellgrounded
defendant
fact
acted
belief
suit
prosecution
question
without
probable
cause
cases
subject
beginning
harlow
fitzgerald
diverge
common
law
two
ways
first
chief
justice
acknowledges
modern
qualified
immunity
turn
upon
subjective
belief
defendant
post
second
immunity
diverges
common
law
model
requiring
defendant
plaintiff
bear
burden
proof
issue
supra
page
decision
impose
requirements
rule
immunity
implications
though
well
beyond
mere
determination
one
party
better
position
bear
burden
proof
implicates
well
law
definition
wrong
common
law
action
lay
essence
wrong
injury
caused
suit
prosecution
commenced
without
probable
cause
knowledge
baseless
cast
issue
terms
immunity
however
imply
wrong
committed
redressed
difference
fundamental
stake
concept
society
considers
proper
conduct
beneath
nomenclature
lie
considerations
substance
harlow
cast
immunity
case
involving
suit
officers
government
immunity
distinct
say
defense
merits
element
plaintiff
cause
action
legal
inquiry
decided
rather
jury
interlocutory
appeal
available
defendants
mitchell
forsyth
whether
correct
diverge
respects
common
law
model
governmental
agents
defendants
adopt
automatic
rule
analysis
applies
suits
private
persons
see
ante
casting
rule
immunity
imply
underlying
conduct
unlawful
debatable
proposition
case
private
citizen
may
acted
good
faith
reliance
upon
statute
defined
immunity
also
eliminate
case
demonstration
subjective
good
faith
common
law
however
plaintiff
prove
subjective
bad
faith
part
defendant
gone
far
towards
proving
malice
lack
probable
cause
moreover
question
defendant
beliefs
almost
always
one
jury
stewart
sonneborn
true
good
faith
may
difficult
establish
face
showing
objective
standpoint
reasonable
person
acted
defendant
many
cases
result
either
test
stewart
describes
instances
probable
cause
turns
subjective
intent
exceptional
case
ibid
post
mean
however
may
deprive
plaintiffs
opportunity
make
case
cases
eliminating
defense
based
subjective
good
faith
make
real
difference
instant
case
alleged
reliance
statute
deemed
valid
provides
example
seems
problematic
say
defendant
relieved
liability
automatic
rule
immunity
objective
reliance
upon
statute
reasonable
defendant
fact
knowledge
invalidity
burden
proof
question
plaintiff
question
may
resolved
summary
judgment
plaintiff
come
forward
facts
bad
faith
inferred
question
factual
one
plaintiff
may
rely
circumstantial
rather
direct
evidence
make
case
siegert
gilley
kennedy
concurring
judgment
rule
course
also
works
reverse
existence
statute
thought
valid
allow
defendant
argue
acted
subjective
good
faith
entitled
exoneration
matter
objective
test
distinction
draw
important
support
common
law
proposition
private
individual
reliance
statute
prior
judicial
determination
unconstitutionality
considered
reasonable
matter
law
therefore
circumstances
case
lack
probable
cause
shown
proof
subjective
bad
faith
birdsall
smith
thus
subjective
element
dismissed
exceptional
dissent
may
rule
rather
exception
join
opinion
believe
nothing
contrary
say
opinion
see
ante
foreclose
possibility
private
defendants
faced
liability
entitled
affirmative
defense
based
good
faith
probable
cause
suits
private
parties
require
plaintiffs
carry
additional
burdens
though
described
issue
immunity
district
appeals
treated
question
one
law
app
appeals
particular
placed
heavy
reliance
policy
considerations
favoring
rule
citizens
may
rely
statutes
presumed
valid
ibid
latter
inquiry
birdsall
recognizes
however
goes
mainly
question
objective
reasonableness
understand
either
district
appeals
make
unequivocal
finding
respondents
us
acted
subjective
good
faith
filed
suit
mississippi
replevin
statute
furthermore
question
granted
certiorari
narrow
one
whether
private
defendants
suits
entitled
qualified
immunity
applicable
public
officials
ante
course
subject
objective
standard
harlow
fitzgerald
view
answer
question
though
might
later
determined
triable
issue
fact
save
plaintiff
case
matter
us
remand
open
least
theory
argue
defendants
bad
faith
eliminates
reliance
statute
open
defendants
show
good
faith
even
construct
reasonable
defendants
position
acted
different
way
agree
case
must
remanded
proceedings
chief
justice
rehnquist
justice
souter
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
notes
recognized
immunity
context
two
circumstances
first
similarly
situated
defendant
enjoyed
immunity
common
law
time
adopted
ante
second
important
public
policy
concerns
suggest
need
immunity
ante
believe
requirements
explained
prior
decisions
satisfied
dissent
first
think
clear
time
adopted
generally
available
private
parties
good
faith
defense
torts
malicious
prosecution
abuse
process
see
authorities
cited
ante
malley
briggs
noting
generally
accepted
rule
common
law
person
held
liable
complaint
made
maliciously
without
probable
cause
pierson
ray
noting
common
law
police
officer
sued
false
arrest
rely
good
faith
making
arrest
willing
assume
much
ante
thinks
insufficient
sustain
respondents
claim
immunity
qualified
immunity
respondents
seek
equivalent
defense
ante
think
errs
suggesting
availability
good
faith
defense
time
adoption
sufficient
support
claim
immunity
case
respondents
principally
rely
pierson
considered
whether
police
officer
sued
false
arrest
rely
showing
good
faith
order
escape
liability
concluded
officer
rely
good
faith
based
large
part
fact
good
faith
defense
available
common
law
best
ambiguous
whether
recognizing
defense
immunity
compare
criticizing
appeals
concluding
immunity
available
recognizing
good
faith
defense
initial
ambiguity
however
certainly
eliminated
subsequent
cases
doubt
qualified
immunity
officer
entitled
see
malley
supra
similarly
wood
strickland
recognized
lthough
differing
emphases
formulations
common
law
immunity
general
recognition
state
law
public
officers
entitled
good
faith
defense
sufficient
support
recognition
immunity
thus
unlike
think
prior
precedent
establishes
demonstration
good
faith
defense
available
time
adopted
fact
provide
substantial
support
contemporary
defendant
claiming
entitled
qualified
immunity
analogous
context
refuse
recognize
immunity
history
purpose
counsel
applying
ante
see
history
purpose
counsel
indeed
loss
understand
accomplished
today
decision
needlessly
fastidious
adherence
nomenclature
given
acknowledges
good
faith
defense
available
respondents
assert
remand
respondents
presumably
required
show
traditional
elements
good
faith
defense
either
acted
without
malice
acted
probable
cause
see
supra
stewart
sonneborn
prosser
law
torts
ed
first
element
maliciousness
encompasses
inquiry
subjective
intent
bringing
suit
stewart
supra
prosser
supra
quite
often
includes
inquiry
defendant
subjective
belief
whether
believed
success
likely
see
addison
law
torts
proof
absence
belief
truth
charge
person
making
almost
always
involved
proof
malice
second
element
probable
cause
focuses
principally
objective
reasonableness
stewart
supra
prosser
supra
thus
respondents
successfully
defend
suit
simply
establishing
reliance
replevin
statute
objectively
reasonable
someone
knowledge
circumstances
precisely
showing
entitles
public
official
immunity
harlow
fitzgerald
official
must
show
action
violate
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
see
reason
defense
may
asserted
early
proceedings
motion
summary
judgment
claim
qualified
immunity
may
provided
historical
facts
dispute
presence
absence
probable
cause
long
acknowledged
question
law
stewart
supra
addison
supra
bishop
commentaries
law
see
reason
trial
judge
may
resolve
summary
judgment
motion
premised
good
faith
defense
encouraged
trial
judges
respect
qualified
immunity
claims
harlow
supra
thus
private
defendants
invoked
state
attachment
law
put
position
whether
recognize
entitled
qualified
immunity
instead
recognize
good
faith
defense
perhaps
believes
defense
less
amenable
summary
disposition
immunity
perhaps
believes
defense
issue
must
submitted
jury
see
ante
referring
cases
proceed
ing
trial
see
reason
given
probable
cause
legal
question
true
today
decision
manage
increase
litigation
costs
needlessly
hapless
defendants
turn
leads
second
basis
previously
recognized
qualified
immunity
reasons
public
policy
assuming
practical
difference
result
recognizing
defense
immunity
think
step
neither
dictated
prior
decisions
desirable
true
points
abandoning
strictly
historical
approach
immunities
often
explained
decision
recognize
immunity
terms
special
needs
public
officials
cases
simply
answer
question
issue
whether
similar
even
completely
unrelated
reasons
public
policy
warrant
immunity
private
parties
well
believe
reasons
normal
presumption
attaches
law
society
benefited
private
parties
rely
law
provide
remedy
rather
turning
form
private
perhaps
lawless
relief
denying
immunity
reasonably
rely
presumptively
valid
state
law
thereby
discouraging
reliance
expresses
confidence
today
decision
unduly
impai
public
interest
share
confidence
thought
beyond
peradventure
strong
public
interest
encouraging
private
citizens
rely
valid
state
laws
reason
doubt
validity
buller
buechler
folsom
investment
moore
second
police
officer
making
arrest
believe
private
plaintiff
lot
unhappy
must
forgo
recovery
property
believes
properly
recoverable
available
legal
processes
mulcted
damages
pierson
belief
turns
mistaken
one
appeals
pointed
least
passing
strange
conclude
private
individuals
acting
color
law
invoke
state
garnishment
statute
aid
state
officers
see
lugar
edmondson
oil
yet
deny
immunity
state
officers
entitled
simply
private
parties
state
employees
buller
supra
strangeness
may
laid
doorstep
decision
lugar
see
burger
dissenting
powell
dissenting
reason
proceed
still
path
jurisprudence
gone
far
afield
indeed
subjects
private
parties
greater
risk
public
counterparts
despite
fact
historic
purpose
prevent
state
officials
using
cloak
authority
state
law
violate
rights
protected
state
infringement
emphasis
added
see
also
monroe
pape
find
today
decision
dictated
neither
precedent
sound
considerations
public
policy
dissent
describing
common
law
providing
defense
something
misnomer
common
law
plaintiff
burden
establish
elements
tort
defendant
acted
malice
without
probable
cause
cooley
law
torts
bishop
commentaries
law
referring
defendant
good
faith
defense
useful
shorthand
capturing
plaintiff
burden
related
notion
defendant
avoid
liability
establishing
either
lack
malice
presence
probable
cause
perhaps
one
small
difference
historic
inquiry
modern
qualified
immunity
inquiry
common
law
plaintiff
show
lack
probable
cause
either
showing
actual
facts
amount
probable
cause
objective
inquiry
showing
defendant
lacked
sincere
belief
probable
cause
existed
subjective
inquiry
bishop
commentaries
law
relying
subjective
belief
rather
objective
lack
probable
cause
clearly
exceptional
see
stewart
sonneborn
describing
subjective
basis
finding
lack
probable
cause
exception
general
rule
see
reason
base
decision
whether
extend
contemporary
objectively
based
qualified
immunity
exceptional
case