Neubecker v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, under Minnesota law, “a public official is entitled to official immunity when his conduct requires the exercise of discretion or judgment and there is no evidence that he acted maliciously or in bad faith”
• discussing that post-Caniglia, the recognition of a community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement was “untenable insofar as [Caniglia] explained that ‘community caretaking’ was not a ‘standalone doctrine’ that could justify warrantless entry into the home.”
• “In other words, because the right at issue was not clearly established, [the plaintiff] cannot meet the demand that deliberate indifference in fact be deliberate.”
• “The plaintiff has the burden to prove that a right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”
• “This balancing test, ever attuned to the nature and quality of the intrusion, comports with the Supreme Court’s instruction that reasonableness is the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.”
• “[W]hen officers act in a noninvestigatory capacity, they may briefly detain an individual to ensure her safety and that of the officers or the public . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).