Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[4]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[4]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-19 13:24:42.515
	1	+2016-11-19 13:24:42.0

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,21 @@
	1	+Text: The United States courts or insert aff actor here should maintain qualified immunity
	2	+- Be more conscientious about evaluating issues against the relevant precedent in a way that embraces the methodology and true holding of that precedent
	3	+- More often conduct a prong-one analysis to define the right implicated in the issues of a given case
	4	+Robin B. Wagner 14, JD candidate at DePaul College of Law, “Are Gay Rights Clearly Established?: The Problems with the Qualified Immunity Doctrine”, 63 DePaul L. Rev. 869 (2014) Available at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029andcontext=law-review
	5	+In three cases of government officials denying their homosexual employees their clearly established equal protection
	6	+AND
	7	+analysis to define the right implicated in the issues of a given case.
	8	+
	9	+It competes – the counterplan doesn’t limit QI but modifies current QI procedure which is conceptually distinct – the gutcheck is if someone read this as an aff, it would lose to T-Limit
	10	+
	11	+First plank prevents abuse of precedent and ensures accurate holding to prior precedent – status quo QI procedures are plagued with Courts unwilling to engage with the hard task of evaluating precedent – CP solves that
	12	+Robin B. Wagner 14, JD candidate at DePaul College of Law, “Are Gay Rights Clearly Established?: The Problems with the Qualified Immunity Doctrine”, 63 DePaul L. Rev. 869 (2014) Available at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029andcontext=law-review
	13	+Conscientious evaluation of presented issues against existing precedent is not inherently objective, nor should
	14	+AND
	15	+assured: there would no longer be a clearly established right in play.
	16	+
	17	+Second plank requires courts to more thoroughly examine allegations of constitutional rights – that ensures more cases remain active, encourages settlements, prevents undermining previous precedent, and sets a model for future decisions that more clearly establishes future rights
	18	+Robin B. Wagner 14, JD candidate at DePaul College of Law, “Are Gay Rights Clearly Established?: The Problems with the Qualified Immunity Doctrine”, 63 DePaul L. Rev. 869 (2014) Available at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029andcontext=law-review
	19	+The key to avoiding such negative outcomes for plaintiffs is for courts to employ the
	20	+AND
	21	+holding officials accountable when they have indeed violated an individual’s clearly established right.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-19 13:24:44.632

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+-

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+-

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Apple Valley Anderson Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NovDec-Wagner CP

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Minneapple RR