Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersFD

10,000+ results

1.49s

  • Provencio v. Vazquez

    258 F.R.D. 626 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2009

    immunity because the violation was not “clearly established.” cf. … Turning to the two factors for qualified immunity identified in Saucier the court on this issue will first inquire into whether the right was “clearly established.”

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Doe v. Aguilar

    400 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2005

    As noted above, plaintiffs have the burden to show that qualified immunity is unavailable here and to do so plaintiffs must show that the right which they allege defendant violated was clearly established in December 2001 … City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320 , 325 (5th Cir.1998): In reviewing a claim of qualified immunity, this Court must determine: ‘(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • McCormack v. Livergood

    353 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

    The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing "discretionary functions," are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ … were "clearly established" at the time of the incident.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • HASSUNEH v. City of Minneapolis

    560 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 29, 2008

    Here, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. Qualified immunity shields government officials as well as private individuals from civil liability under § 1983. … Second, the alleged right must be clearly established. Id.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • LoSacco v. City of Middletown

    822 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 22, 1993

    First, the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … In this case, the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • VanHorn v. Nebraska State Racing Commission

    304 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 27, 2004

    Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials from damage liability unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Hafley v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Parsons v. McCann

    138 F. Supp. 3d 1086 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 30, 2015

    R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. a. … State officials enjoy qualified immunity from a § 1983 action if their conduct did not violaté “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Smith v. College of the Mainland

    63 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 30, 2014

    “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 … In other words, for purposes of qualified immunity, the illegality of First Amendment retaliation is clearly established when the officials “do not have any relevant, legitimate interests to put on their side of the Pickering

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Galloway v. City of Abbeville

    871 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 2, 2012

    Qualified immunity on Galloway’s unlawful arrest claim (Count B) Duhaime also invokes the qualified immunity doctrine to shield him from Galloway’s Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim. … Historically the Supreme Court required lower courts to decide the constitutional issue before inquiring into whether the claimed right was clearly established. See, e.g., Scott v.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Binkowski v. Family & Children's Services Agency

    39 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1998

    It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that the right to due process of law is “clearly established” under the Fourteenth Amendment. … However, qualified immunity applies only to individuals, not government entities. See, e.g., Leatherman v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Garcia v. Webb County District Attorney

    764 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 12, 1991

    Thus absolute immunity is not a protection to Defendant Garcia in his role as an employer; at best, Defendant Garcia has only qualified immunity for his alleged misbehavior in the instant case. Qualified Immunity. … Defendant Garcia has not established entitlement to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, and he does not have absolute immunity.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Cavanagh v. Taranto

    95 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

    What an Objectively Reasonable Official Would Believe Under the Circumstances Although the right Cavanagh alleges is clearly established, to avoid qualified immunity the bounds and contours of a violation of that right must … suicide — “violated clearly established law.”

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Ennis v. Lott

    589 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2008

    Individual Capacity With respect to the claims against him in his individual capacity, defendant Berry *36 argues that he is protected by qualified immunity “insofar as his ... conduct dues not violate clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Spruytte v. Hoffner

    197 F. Supp. 2d 931 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2001

    The Sixth Circuit determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning a prisoner’s retaliation claim was not “clearly established” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense prior … because the law was not clearly established.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Newcomb v. City of Troy

    719 F. Supp. 1408 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 1989

    The “clearly established law” at the time Plaintiff was seized by Officer Denny permitted the application of deadly force in limited circumstances. … The claims against Officer Denny are dismissed above on the basis of qualified immunity under Anderson v. Creighton, supra.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Murphy v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc.

    76 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1999

    qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Having determined that qualified immunity is generally available to the Board Defendants, it remains to determine whether their assertion of it satisfies the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

    225 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2002

    Defendants argue in their reply brief for the first time that they are also covered by qualified immunity in that they have not violated any clearly established rights. … Qualified Immunity In their reply brief, the Defendants raise for the first time the defense of qualified immunity from suit.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Evans v. City of San Diego

    913 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 19, 2012

    “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … For example, “qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his ... conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law- and the information” possessed by the officer at the

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Goldwire v. City of Philadelphia

    130 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2015

    An officer asserting an' entitlement to qualified immunity must claim that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. Behrens v. … violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Richardson v. Nassau County Medical Center

    840 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1994

    Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability in a civil action if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Whether the government official can benefit from qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was

    Cited 7 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.