Marshall v. Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that discovery “should not be allowed “ until the court makes a requested qualified immunity determination
• concluding that district court order postponing ruling on qualified-immunity defense constituted denial because defendants “los[t] their right to be free from the burdens of pretrial discovery and trial”
• noting that qualified immunity, if successful, protects an official both from liability and the ordinary burdens of litigation, including far-ranging discovery
• stating that court cannot frame question of qualified immunity as factual to avoid determining whether the law was clearly established at time of alleged violation
• noting the propriety of delaying a ruling on qualified immunity until conduct of narrowly tailored discovery
• noting discovery should not be allowed until the court resolves the threshold question of clearly established law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).