Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersF

10,000+ results

2.97s

  • Forsyth v. Kleindienst

    729 F.2d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 1984

    The district court reasoned that because Mitchell failed to establish an objective basis for believing his action to be lawful at the time he authorized the wiretaps in question, the clearly established law made his warrantless … Appealability of Summary Denial of Qualified Immunity Defendant Mitchell appeals also the district court’s summary denial of his qualified immunity claim.

    Cited 24 timesPublished
  • Ricky Brogsdale v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., Donyell A. Marsh v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.

    926 F.2d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 12, 1991

    legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Hollowell, 714 F.2d 1372, 1376 (5th Cir.1983) (inmates’ rights were “clearly established” by earlier court order, such that breach of that order could not be within officials’ qualified immunity).

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • Henderson Duval Houghton v. Carroll v. South

    965 F.2d 1532 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 11, 1992

    clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … South moved for summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense.

    Cited 246 timesPublished
  • Harvey Lucious Hall v. George Lombardi William Armontrout, Warden Donald Cline

    996 F.2d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 11, 1993

    In determining whether the appellants are protected by qualified immunity, we must first decide “the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which [Hall] complains violated clearly established law,” and then we … The test “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts,” and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because “a reasonably competent public official

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Samantha Vazquez v. County of Kern

    949 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2020

    The panel held that the Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v.

    Cited 155 timesPublished
  • Gardner v. Howard

    109 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 12, 1997

    Defendants appeal the qualified immunity portion of that ruling. … II. 8 Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 damage liability unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

    Cited 149 timesPublished
  • Walker v. Schult

    717 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2013

    was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. … If an official's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if the official reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate such a right, then he is protected by qualified immunity.

    Cited 3,370 timesPublished
  • Thomas Richard Brown v. Frank D'Amico

    35 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 1994

    Qualified immunity shields arresting officers from personal liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We hold that D’Amico is entitled to qualified immunity because this right was not clearly established in December 1986 when he applied for an arrest warrant (nor indeed is it clearly established even now).

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Beck v. Wilson

    377 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 29, 2004

    violate clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Elkins v. Summit County, Ohio

    615 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2010

    Qualified Immunity In evaluating qualified immunity claims, we “[f]irst . . . determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established … immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.’”

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

    856 F.2d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

    The basis for their claim of immunity was that Stoneking did not have a clearly established right to be free from the sexual abuse of Wright, a member of the school’s staff, that they were under no clearly established duty … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles government officials performing discretionary functions to immunity from liability for civil damages when their conduct “does not violate clearly established

    Vacated by Smith v. Stoneking, 489 U.S. 1062 (1989)Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Sheets v. Butera

    389 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

    "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … As previously noted, before we determine whether the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, we first must determine whether the facts alleged show that the officers violated a constitutional right

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

    708 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

    Qualified immunity protects government officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

    Cited 128 timesPublished
  • Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas

    500 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2007

    Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We do not require that an official demonstrate that he did not violate clearly established federal rights; our precedent places that burden upon plaintiffs.”). … To prevail, Zarnow must show that the search was unreasonable under clearly-established law at the time of the search. See Sorenson v. Ferrie, 134 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1998).

    Cited 53 timesPublished
  • John Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky

    860 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

    Defendant Simpson fails to show this procedure is inapplicable in cases involving qualified immunity.4 The concerns that support determining qualified immunity at the earliest stage of litigation are not present … As qualified immunity is “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it becomes essentially meaningless if a case wrongfully goes to trial. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

    Cited 146 timesPublished
  • Victor R. Rodriguez-Burgos v. Electric Energy Authority

    853 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

    We address the qualified immunity question first. II. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The defendants were thus entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s damages claims since the plaintiff held the type of upper-level management or administrative post that was not clearly protected against patronage

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Essence Welch v. Daniel Dempsey

    51 F.4th 809 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 20, 2022

    In a footnote, the court noted that Dempsey’s motion made “a passing reference that ‘at minimum’ he is entitled to qualified immunity,” and concluded that the law was clearly established that retaliation for protected speech … In an interlocutory appeal raising a defense of qualified immunity, this court has jurisdiction to address only an order deciding a purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by a plaintiff show a violation of clearly

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Larry E. Yowell v. Jerry P. Combs Andy Dalton Jay Henges John Powell Jerry J. Presley David Hurlbut

    89 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 1996

    On appeal, Yowell contends the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because his right to continued employment with the Department was so clearly established at the time of his demotion that the officials must … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. 3 Harlow v.

    Cited 57 timesPublished
  • Allan Rodgers v. Daniel Knight

    781 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 2015

    Municipalities do not enjoy qualified immunity, but a municipality “cannot exhibit fault rising to the level of deliberate indifference to a constitutional right when that right has not yet been clearly established.” … At a minimum, the act of retaining the guns did not violate clearly established law.

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Daniel J. Leveto v. Robert A. Lapina

    258 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2001

    B. 11 The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … See Brown, 922 F.2d at 1118-19 (recognizing that the clearly established requirement "may produce distressing results," but finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity).

    Cited 136 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.