Wayne Madole v. State of Arkansas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff \failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right\
• holding that the appellate court should not have assumed, without deciding, the constitutional question and characterizing this question as a \necessary concomitant\ to the second inquiry
• holding that the appellate court should not have assumed, without deciding, the constitutional question and characterizing this question as a “necessary concomitant” to the second inquiry
• recognizing that “injury to reputation by itself is not a ‘liberty’ interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment”
• holding that the first inquiry in a proper qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right
• holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff “failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).