Tinker v. Modern Brotherhood of America

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that if officer submitted an affidavit that contained statements he knew to be false “the shield of qualified immunity is lost”
• concluding that 7 agreement did not contemplate a separate legal entity under Washington joint powers act
• holding that if officer submitted an affidavit that contained statements he knew to be false \the shield of qualified immunity is lost\
• holding that interagency task force was not a separate and distinct legal entity
• holding that umbrella organization composed of various city and county offices was not a separately 1 |} I. Recommendation 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed 3 || forma pauperis (ECF No. 1
• holding “TNET,” a Tacoma-area drug task force also organized under the ICA, is not a person subject to suit since its interlocal agreement “d[id] not contemplate a separate legal entity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).