johnson
et
al
fankell
argued
february
decided
june
held
defendants
state
action
federal
right
interlocutory
appeal
denial
qualified
immunity
pp
state
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
qualified
immunity
defense
appropriate
circumstances
shields
liability
damages
burdens
trial
harlow
fitzgerald
federal
district
order
rejecting
defense
ground
defendant
actions
proven
violated
clearly
established
law
may
appealed
immediately
final
decision
general
federal
appellate
jurisdiction
statute
mitchell
forsyth
relying
respondent
federal
statutory
claim
federal
defense
petitioners
submit
idaho
courts
must
protect
right
avoid
burdens
trial
allowing
interlocutory
appeal
available
federal
pp
rejects
petitioners
argument
idaho
courts
construe
rule
must
accept
federal
definition
final
decision
cases
brought
even
idaho
rule
contained
identical
language
theydo
idaho
interpretation
rule
binding
federal
courts
authority
place
different
construction
upon
see
new
york
ferber
idaho
voluntarily
place
construction
rule
mitchell
placed
command
choice
pp
also
unpersuasive
petitioners
contention
rule
pre
empted
extent
allow
interlocutory
appeal
petitioner
arguments
strong
enough
overcome
two
considerable
hurdles
first
normal
presumption
pre
emption
buttressed
fact
idaho
dismissal
appeal
rested
squarely
neutral
state
rule
administering
state
courts
howlett
rose
second
qualified
immunity
defense
ultimate
purpose
protect
state
officials
overenforcement
federal
rights
rule
application
context
less
interference
federal
interests
petitioners
claim
judgment
best
balance
competing
state
interests
arguing
pre
emption
necessary
avoid
different
outcomes
litigation
based
solely
whether
claim
asserted
state
federal
petitioners
misplace
reliance
felder
casey
utcom
used
referred
ultimate
disposition
case
whereas
postponement
appeal
final
judgment
affect
ultimate
outcome
case
petitioners
qualified
immunity
claim
meritorious
argument
rule
adequately
protect
right
prevail
immunity
question
advance
trial
also
fails
given
precise
source
scope
federal
right
issue
contrast
right
trial
rule
immunity
defense
merits
presumably
source
fully
protected
idaho
right
immediate
appellate
review
ruling
federal
case
source
see
johnson
jones
federal
procedural
right
simply
apply
nonfederal
forum
pp
affirmed
stevens
delivered
opinion
unanimous
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
wash
ington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
marian
johnson
et
petitioners
kristine
fankell
writ
certiorari
idaho
june
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
defendants
action
brought
rev
stat
state
federal
right
interlocutory
appeal
denial
qualified
immunity
hold
petitioners
officials
idaho
liquor
dispensary
respondent
former
liquor
store
clerk
brought
action
damages
district
county
bonner
idaho
alleged
petitioners
deprived
property
without
due
process
law
violation
fourteenth
amendment
federal
constitution
terminated
employment
petitioners
moved
dismiss
complaint
ground
entitled
qualified
immunity
contended
time
respondent
dismissal
reasonably
believed
probationary
employee
property
interest
job
accordingly
petitioners
argued
termination
violate
clearly
established
law
trial
denied
motion
petitioners
filed
timely
notice
appeal
state
idaho
state
entered
order
dismissing
appeal
explained
order
denying
motion
summary
judgment
appealable
idaho
appellate
rule
reason
final
order
judgment
app
also
rejected
petitioners
arguments
order
appealable
behrens
pelletier
petitioners
sought
rehearing
arguing
order
final
within
meaning
idaho
appellate
rule
alternative
right
appeal
matter
federal
law
denied
rehearing
dismissed
appeal
petitioners
filed
petition
seeking
either
writ
certiorari
writ
mandamus
pointed
state
courts
unlike
idaho
allow
interlocutory
appeals
orders
denying
qualified
immunity
theory
review
necessary
protect
substantial
federal
right
see
mclin
trimble
lakewood
brace
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
affirm
recognized
qualified
immunity
defense
federal
officials
sued
implied
cause
action
asserted
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
state
officials
sued
situations
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
generally
shielded
liability
civil
damages
insofar
conductdoes
violate
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
harlow
fitzgerald
qualified
immunity
defense
valuable
officials
asserting
two
reasons
first
found
applicable
stage
proceedings
determines
outcome
litigation
shielding
official
damages
liability
second
complaint
fails
allege
violation
clearly
established
law
discovery
fails
uncover
evidence
sufficient
create
genuine
issue
whether
defendant
committed
violation
provides
defendant
immunity
burdens
trial
well
defense
liability
indeed
one
reason
adopting
objective
test
announced
harlow
permit
resolution
many
insubstantial
claims
summary
judgment
ibid
consistent
purpose
held
mitchell
forsyth
federal
district
order
rejecting
qualified
immunity
defense
ground
defendant
actions
proven
violated
clearly
established
law
may
appealed
immediately
final
decision
within
meaning
general
federal
appellate
jurisdiction
statute
action
brought
federal
therefore
petitioners
right
take
appeal
trial
order
denying
motion
summary
judgment
relying
facts
respondent
asserted
federal
claim
federal
statute
asserting
defense
provided
federal
law
petitioners
submit
idaho
courts
must
protect
right
avoid
burdens
trial
allowing
interlocutory
appeal
available
federal
support
submission
two
different
arguments
first
idaho
courts
construe
rules
allowing
appeals
final
judgments
must
accept
federal
definition
finality
cases
brought
second
rules
authorize
appeal
pre
empted
federal
law
find
neither
argument
persuasive
easily
dispense
petitioners
first
contention
idaho
must
follow
federal
construction
final
decision
even
idaho
federal
statutes
contained
identical
language
interpretation
idaho
statute
idaho
binding
federal
courts
neither
federal
tribunal
authority
place
construction
state
statute
different
one
rendered
highest
state
see
new
york
ferber
exxon
department
revenue
commissioner
bosch
proposition
fundamental
system
federalism
applicable
procedural
well
substantive
rules
see
wardius
oregon
definition
term
final
decision
weadopted
mitchell
application
collateral
order
doctrine
first
recognized
cohen
beneficial
industrial
loan
case
cases
following
construing
federal
statutory
language
adopted
similar
collateral
order
exception
construing
jurisdictional
statutes
never
suggested
federal
law
compelled
indeed
number
employ
collateral
order
doctrines
reject
limitations
placed
idaho
ofcourse
place
construction
appellate
rule
placed
clearly
choice
make
one
authority
command
petitioners
also
contend
extent
idaho
appellate
rule
allow
interlocutory
appeal
pre
empted
relying
heavily
felder
casey
petitioners
first
assert
pre
emption
necessary
avoid
different
outcomes
litigation
based
solely
whether
claim
asserted
state
federal
second
argue
state
procedure
impermissibly
burden
federal
immunity
suit
adequately
protect
right
prevail
immunity
question
advance
trial
two
reasons
petitioners
heavy
burden
persuasion
making
argument
first
normal
presumption
pre
emption
buttressed
fact
idaho
dismissal
appeal
rested
squarely
neutral
state
rule
regarding
administration
state
courts
explained
howlett
rose
state
refuses
jurisdiction
neutral
state
rule
regarding
administration
courts
must
act
utmost
caution
deciding
obligated
entertain
claim
see
missouri
ex
rel
southern
mayfield
georgia
rail
road
banking
musgrove
per
curiam
herb
pitcairn
douglas
new
york
requirement
state
competent
jurisdiction
treat
federal
law
law
land
necessarily
include
within
requirement
state
create
competent
hear
case
federal
claim
presented
general
rule
bottomed
deeply
belief
importance
state
control
state
judicial
procedure
federal
law
takes
state
courts
finds
hart
relations
state
federal
law
colum
rev
see
also
southland
keating
dissenting
ferc
mississippi
opinion
powell
thus
great
latitude
establish
structure
jurisdiction
courts
petitioner
arguments
pre
emption
strong
enough
overcome
considerable
hurdles
contrary
petitioners
assertions
idaho
decision
provide
appellate
review
vast
majority
interlocutory
orders
including
denials
qualified
immunity
cases
outcome
determinative
sense
used
term
held
wisconsin
notice
claim
statute
applied
defeat
federal
civil
rights
action
brought
state
courts
felder
failure
comply
wisconsin
statute
felder
resulted
judgment
dismissing
complaint
dismissed
least
without
judicial
determination
merits
claim
case
filed
federal
one
primary
grounds
decision
notice
claim
requirement
frequently
predictably
produce
different
outcomes
depending
whether
claimswere
brought
state
federal
inconsistent
federal
interest
uniformity
petitioners
reliance
felder
misplaced
outcome
used
term
referred
ultimate
disposition
case
petitioners
claim
qualified
immunity
meritorious
suggestion
application
idaho
rules
procedure
produce
final
result
different
federal
ruling
produce
petitioners
able
argue
immunity
suit
claim
trial
federal
claim
reviewable
idaho
trial
enters
final
judgment
thus
providing
petitioners
chance
urge
immunity
consequently
postponement
appeal
final
judgment
affect
ultimate
outcome
case
petitioners
second
argument
pre
emption
state
procedural
rule
rule
adequately
protect
right
prevail
advance
trial
evaluating
contention
important
focus
precise
source
scope
federal
right
issue
right
trial
rule
merits
qualified
immunity
defense
presumably
source
right
immediate
appellate
review
ruling
federal
case
source
former
right
fully
protected
idaho
latter
right
however
federal
procedural
rightthat
simply
apply
nonfederal
forum
locus
right
interlocutory
appeal
rather
demonstrated
holding
johnson
jones
case
government
officials
asserting
qualified
immunity
claimed
entitlement
interlocutory
appeal
district
order
denying
motion
summary
judgment
ground
record
showed
genuine
issue
material
fact
whether
officials
actually
engaged
conduct
constituted
clear
violation
constitutional
law
concluded
circumstance
different
presented
mitchell
subject
interlocutory
appeal
whether
given
set
facts
showed
violation
clearly
established
law
held
although
allow
interlocutory
appeal
latter
circumstance
appeal
allowed
former
holding
acknowledged
whether
district
denial
summary
judgment
amounts
determination
pre
existing
clearly
established
law
determination
genuine
issues
fact
trial
still
forces
public
officials
trial
concluded
strong
countervailing
considerations
surrounding
appropriateinterpretation
sufficient
importance
outweigh
officials
interest
avoiding
burdens
litigation
countervailing
considerations
issue
even
stronger
presented
johnson
pre
emption
state
law
issue
must
respect
principles
fundamental
system
federalism
state
courts
share
responsibility
application
enforcement
federal
law
howlett
respect
apex
confront
claim
federal
law
requires
state
undertake
something
fundamental
restructuring
operation
courts
therefore
agree
petitioners
recognition
defense
qualified
immunity
pre
empts
state
consistent
application
neutral
procedural
rules
even
rules
deny
interlocutory
appeal
context
judgment
state
idaho
dismissing
petitioners
appeal
therefore
affirmed
ordered
footnotes
affidavits
filed
support
motion
treated
motion
summary
judgment
course
case
dismissed
pleadings
early
pre
trial
stage
qualified
immunity
also
provides
officials
valuable
protection
burdens
broad
ranging
discovery
harlow
fitzgerald
mitchell
forsyth
involved
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
action
federal
official
also
construed
authorize
similar
appeals
actions
brought
state
officials
see
johnson
jones
inal
decision
operative
term
whereas
udgments
orders
decrees
final
language
idaho
appellate
rule
thus
mitchell
explained
holding
similar
issues
absolute
immunity
appealable
collateral
order
doctrine
see
abney
helstoski
meanor
nixon
fitzgerald
recognized
question
immunity
separate
merits
underlying
action
purposes
cohen
test
even
though
reviewing
must
consider
plaintiff
factual
allegations
resolving
immunity
issue
accordingly
hold
district
denial
claim
qualified
immunity
extent
turns
issue
law
appealable
final
decision
within
meaning
notwithstanding
absence
final
judgment
omitted
see
richardson
chevrefils
although
rulings
normally
treated
interlocutory
followed
mitchell
accepting
state
defendants
appeal
order
denying
motion
summary
judgment
murray
white
mitchell
held
trial
denial
claim
qualified
immunity
met
collateral
order
requirements
agree
determination
park
county
cooney
wyo
believe
state
decisions
allow
appeal
reasons
detailed
mitchell
better
reasoned
therefore
hold
order
denying
dismissal
claim
based
qualified
immunity
order
appealable
see
goldston
american
motors
disqualification
counsel
appealable
state
collateral
order
doctrine
notwithstandingrichardson
merrell
koller
hanson
federal
signal
super
class
certification
denial
notwithstanding
coopers
lybrand
livesay
see
brief
petitioners
unlike
notice
claim
rule
issue
felder
casey
idaho
appellate
rule
target
civil
rights
claims
state
see
also
howlett
rose
instead
generally
permits
appeals
udgments
orders
decrees
final
without
regard
identity
party
seeking
appeal
subject
matter
suit
petitioners
claim
rule
neutral
permits
interlocutory
appeals
certain
limited
circumstances
denies
appeal
never
held
rule
must
monolithic
neutral
absent
evidence
appellate
discriminates
interlocutory
appeals
qualified
immunity
determinations
defendants
compared
types
appeals
must
deem
state
procedure
neutral
warrant
observation
rule
idaho
appellate
rules
provides
state
may
grant
permission
appeal
interlocutory
order
decree
otherwise
appealable
rules
involves
controlling
question
law
substantial
grounds
difference
opinion
immediate
appeal
may
materially
advance
orderly
resolution
litigation
presumably
petitioners
sought
review
permissive
provision
idaho
might
granted
review
view
officials
claim
immunity
substantial
suit
proceed
see
also
brown
western
federal
employers
liability
act
pre
empted
different
state
pleading
requirements
effect
defeat
plaintiff
cause
action
garrett
moore
mccormack
federal
jones
act
pre
empted
different
state
burden
proof
regarding
releases
effect
defeat
plaintiff
cause
action
petitioners
reliance
dice
akron
therefore
misplaced
dice
held
federal
employers
liability
act
fela
pre
empted
state
rule
denying
right
jury
trial
case
however
made
clear
congress
provided
fela
jury
trial
procedure
part
claims
brought
act
citing
bailey
central
vermont
case
contrast
congress
mentioned
nothing
interlocutory
appeals
rather
right
immediate
appeal
federal
system
found
obviously
application
state
courts
made
quite
clear
matter
state
decide
structure
judicial
system
see
slip
obligation
provide
appellate
review
citing
cases
kohl
lehlback
right
review
appellate
purely
matter
state
concern
mckane
durston
hether
appeal
allowed
circumstances
conditions
matters
state
determine