Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.82s
Juanita CAUSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
516 F.2d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 1975
Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P., lays down the “clearly erroneous” test for appellate review of district court findings of fact. … In sum, the court concluded that appellant had failed to establish unlawful discrimination by the requisite evidentiary preponderance.
Cited 92 timesPublished986 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 19, 2021
Cronin, 537 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2008) (reasoning that, even if a constitutional right has been clearly established, a defendant may nonetheless be protected by qualified immunity if a reasonable official … So now, as we leapfrog the initial elements of the qualified-immunity analysis (recall that we're assuming arguendo that the use of the pepper spray was unreasonable and Justiniano had a clearly established right to be
Cited 58 timesPublishedJohn Ronald Bertram v. George Deukmejian
9 F.3d 1550 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 4, 1993
for qualified immunity purposes. … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 193-94 (1984) (state official retains qualified immunity if the federal constitutional right was not clearly established, even if the conduct clearly violated state statute or regulation). 5 In Turner
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedWilliam J. Elliott v. William Thomas, Barbara Propst v. Morton W. Weir
937 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 4, 1991
Qualified immunity, we know from Mitchell , establishes a right not to be tried. When rules of law clearly establish public officials’ duty, the immunity defense is unavailable. … By sleight of hand you can turn any defense on the merits into a defense of qualified immunity.
Cited 109 timesPublished304 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2002
However, under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Sonnleitner has failed to establish that this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Sonn-leitner has failed to carry his burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right to a pre-de-motion hearing as to
Cited 81 timesPublished492 F.3d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2007
A judicial pronouncement that an ordinance is consistent with common sense hardly establishes that it is so. B. … The district court, in its order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, determined that Chief Fruchey was entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 42 timesPublished711 F.3d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 2013
To accomplish this goal, the ADA requires that 13 employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified 14 individuals. See id. § 12112(b)(5). … This burden is not heavy: “It is enough for the plaintiff 21 to suggest the existence of a plausible accommodation, the costs of 22 which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.”
Cited 334 timesPublishedCassidy Jared Loch v. City of Litchfield
689 F.3d 961 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 27, 2012
Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established
Cited 104 timesPublishedStarkey Ex Rel. AB v. BOULDER COUNTY SOC. SERV.
569 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 2009
Even if they had violated one of the Starkeys’ constitutional rights (in which case BCDSS might be liable), they would be protected by qualified immunity if the constitutional right had not been clearly established at the … Qualified immunity, however, is available only in suits against officials sued in their personal capacities, not in suits against governmental entities or officials sued in their official capacities. See Beedle v.
Cited 78 timesPublishedNina Yoder v. University of Louisville
526 F. App'x 537 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2013
The qualified-immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights. Barker v. … clearly established.
Cited 32 timesUnpublished612 F. App'x 926 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 22, 2015
Hrabe was entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Matson failed to show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of action. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (discussing two-prong qualified-immunity test).
Cited 3 timesUnpublishedVictoria Cunningham v. Dep't of Children's Servs.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2021
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPublic Citizen, Inc. v. Department of Justice and National Archives and Records Administration
111 F.3d 168 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 22, 1997
The Presidential Records Act establishes an elaborate structure for the management of Presidential records. The United States retains ownership, possession and control. 44 U.S.C. § 2202 (1994). … The former President clearly qualifies as an expert on the implications of disclosure of Presidential records from his administration.
Cited 39 timesPublishedJeffrey L. Poulakis v. Michael Rogers
341 F. App'x 523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2009
This Court has said clearly, consistently, and on numerous occasions that we may only consider the precedent of these courts in determining whether the case law has “clearly established” a right for qualified immunity purposes … establish qualified immunity.”
Cited 25 timesUnpublishedGary Orlowski v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
872 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2017
Defendants Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The first question we must address is whether Alexander and Manns (“Defendants”) are entitled to qualified immun- ity. … Manns that could impact qualified immunity analysis.
Cited 68 timesPublished179 F.3d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 1999
Overview 10 The defense of qualified immunity grants government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from individual liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory … established prior to 1996 in order to preclude a finding of qualified immunity.
Cited 24 timesPublished92 F.4th 615 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 2024
The court’s analysis of the state defendants’ qualified-immunity defense, however, failed to assess whether those constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violations. … clearly established law).
Cited 16 timesPublished28 F.3d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 1994
Indian affairs, clearly intended to authorize such suits. … district, established by ... the United States"); Pennsylvania v.
Cited 0 timesPublished494 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 18, 2007
established” constitutional law and preclude the defendants from proffering a qualified immunity defense. … II The Supreme Court has established a two-step analysis for assessing claims of qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .
Cited 70 timesPublishedCason Cunningham v. Norm Kramer
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 13, 2019
Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity). We affirm. … See Ashcroft v. al- Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); Hines v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna