Citing references

In Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 565 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988), our Supreme Court held that the test announced in Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 US 800 ; 102 S Ct 1717 ; 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982), was the proper test regarding claims of qualified immunity under 42 USC

See Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 818 ; 102 S Ct 2727 ; 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982), and Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 568 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988).

Guider v Smith, 157 Mich App 92, 102 ; 403 NW2d 505 (1987), aff'd on other grounds 431 Mich 559 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988). Further, the court may limit the amount of time allotted to each party for its opening statement. MCR 2.507(F).

v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 565 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988), quoting Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 818 ; 102 S Ct 1717 ; 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982).

Guider v Smith, 157 Mich App 92, 101 ; 403 NW2d 505 (1987), aff'd 431 Mich 559 (1988).

Guider v. Smith, 431 Mich. 559 , 431 N.W.2d 810, 816, n. 15 (1988) (trial court may consider immunity claims on motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment and as defense to liability in trial on the merits).

v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 572 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988) (noting a case should proceed to trial if there is a question of fact that would affect the availability of immunity). 21 Odom, 482 Mich at 467 . 22 Driver v Naini, 490 Mich 239, 246-247 ; 802 NW2d

See Harlow, 457 US at 818-819 ; see also Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 568 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988).

Smith, 431 Mich. 559 , 571 431 N.W.2d 810, 815 (1988), since the United States Supreme Court defined the limits of qualified immunity in terms of an objective reasonableness standard of good faith, “[w]hat the defendant [police officer] believed at the time of

Guider v Smith, 157 Mich App 92, 102-103 ; 403 NW2d 505 (1987), aff'd 431 Mich 559 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988).

General Motors Corp., 183 Mich.App. 21, 26 , 454 N.W.2d 405 (1990) (citing Guider v. Smith, 157 Mich.App. 92, 101 , 403 N.W.2d 505 (1987), aff'd 431 Mich. 559 , 431 N.W.2d 810 (1988)). *734 B.

Guider v Smith, 157 Mich App 92, 103-104 ; 403 NW2d 505 (1987), cert den — US —; 108 S Ct 1079 ; 99 L Ed 2d 238 (1988), aff'd 431 Mich 559 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988).

See Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 572 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988).

See Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 572 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988).

See Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 569-570 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988) (rejecting the use of a “subjective” focus and explaining that the proper inquiry was “whether a reasonable man in the defendant’s position could have believed his actions were consistent with

157 Mich App 92 ; 403 NW2d 505 (1987), aff'd 431 Mich 559 (1988), 8 but it is not in this case because what happened after the crimes would have been committed is not relevant to whether the crimes were committed

This argument relies on the standard set forth in a United States Supreme Court case, Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 US 800 ; 102 S Ct 2727 ; 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982), recently discussed by the Michigan Supreme Court in Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559 ; 431 *212

Precopio v Detroit, 415 Mich 457, 473-474 ; 330 NW2d 802 (1982); Guider v Smith, 157 Mich App 92, 108-109 ; 403 NW2d 505 (1987), aff’d 431 Mich 559 (1988).