Skip to main content
Tenth Circuit· 3/16/1992

Workman v. Jordan

Citations

  • 958 F.2d 332
  • 1992 WL 46482

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).

Judges: Brorby, Moore, Tacha

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

63 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Workman v. Jordan

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.