Don H. Gunderson and Bobbie J. Gunderson, Co-Trustees of the Don H. Gunderson Living Trust v. State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Alliance for the Great Lakes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that 19 plaintiffs do not contest the dismissal of their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
• observing that Wyatt’s discussion of the most closely analogous common law tort 19 “applies only to . . . qualified immunity” and not to the good faith defense
• finding that the defendant unions did “exactly what we expect of private parties: adhering to the governing law of its state and deferring to the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution”
• explaining that plaintiffs’ claim for monetary relief was damages, not restitution, but “[e]ven accepting Plaintiffs’ 2 19-35299 restitutionary premise, the equities do not weigh in favor of requiring a refund of all agency fees collected pre-Janus”
• noting that because plaintiffs’ “claims arise from the [u]nion’s reliance on Abood, not allegations that the [u]nion flouted that authority, the [u]nion need not show compliance with Abood’s strictures to assert successfully a good faith defense”
• following 19 Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31; AFL-CIO, 942 F.3d 352, 365 (7th 20 Cir. 2019) and finding that abuse of process was the “best analogy” for plaintiffs’ Section 1983 21 claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).