Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersFD

10,000+ results

1.29s

  • Torres v. Goddard

    194 F. Supp. 3d 886 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 1, 2016

    Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … As a matter of law, clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes is the law clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Long v. Underwood

    District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 4, 2019

    Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit “in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Univ., 102 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Walker v. Ryals

    District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 2023

    Because the above failure to protect law was clearly established prior to the May 2022 fight, I conclude Officer Huett and Corporal Barnat are not entitled to qualified immunity on this failure to protect claim. … And, because that law was clearly established before May 2022, I conclude Defendant Barnat is not entitled to qualified immunity on this excessive force claim. V.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Brown v. Scott

    329 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 26, 2004

    The defendant claims that he is entitled to a dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the undisputed facts do not demonstrate a violation of the plaintiffs clearly established Eighth Amendment rights. … further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).

    Cited 70 timesPublished
  • Murphy v. City of Farmington

    District Court, D. New Mexico · May 12, 2021

    to qualified immunity. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • DE MONTALVO v. DIXON

    District Court, N.D. Florida · Oct 17, 2024

    FDC Defendants also assert qualified immunity. ECF No. 32 at 24-25. III. … proceed to the next step of determining if a constitutional right was clearly established”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Raub v. Bowen

    960 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 2, 2013

    Nevertheless, there are some clearly established standards to guide a reasonable police officer who detains a person for mental evaluation. … Goo-den filed suit and the officers invoked qualified immunity as a defense. The district court denied qualified immunity, as did a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit. Id.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Sanchez v. Sanchez

    777 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 8, 1991

    If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity. … As the reasoning in these cases demonstrates, where the right is clearly established, a defendant to a claim requiring proof of impermissible motive is not entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Nelson v. Giurbino

    395 F. Supp. 2d 946 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 20, 2005

    Relying on these cases and decisions, Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional right to access internet generated materials was clearly established and concludes that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Since Plaintiffs fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court finds that Defendant Grannis is entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Carey v. City of Fall River

    708 F. Supp. 431 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1988

    Thus, the court concludes that no constitutional counterpart of malicious prosecution or abuse of process was clearly established in 1983 and, therefore, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this … The Supreme Court has found that provisions in police regulations will not serve to clearly establish federal law for qualified immunity purposes. See Davis v.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Schneyder v. Smith

    709 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2010

    Detention As a Material Witness Requires Probable Cause Under Third Circuit law, “a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … would have known that those rights were clearly established constitutional rights. 2.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Cozayatl Sampedro v. Schriro

    377 F. Supp. 3d 133 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 28, 2019

    Sampedro cannot establish that he violated a clearly established right and, therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity in any event. … similar circumstances. 4 See Allah, 876 F.3d at 59 (holding defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where relevant precedent *143 did not clearly establish that a substantive due process would result from disputed

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Salas v. United States

    District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2024

    United States, 571 U.S. 591 (2015), the Tenth Circuit vacated Salas’ § 924(c) conviction on the ground that arson was not a qualifying “crime of violence” and remanded for resentencing. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Siddique v. City of New York

    District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2025

    Indeed, Inoa’s own description of why he is entitled to qualified immunity touches upon several areas in dispute: [I]t was not clearly established that Officer … That seems unlikely because the language “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights” in the context of failure to intervene borrows from the qualified immunity doctrine, see Riccitui, 124 F.3d at 129, and

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13

    880 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1994

    immunity because no clearly established rights existed); Doe v. … established, and is not entitled to qualified immunity).

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Vu, Kojoua v. Lozano, Kevin

    District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 27, 2023

    A government defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows not only that the defendant violated his rights, but also that his rights were “clearly established” at the relevant time. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Garces Robles v. Ramirez

    District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 25, 2024

    Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Hicks, 81 F.4th at 504 (holding that the right to timely release was clearly established as of 2017).5 “Ultimately, the touchstone is fair warning: The law can be clearly established despite notable factual distinctions

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Shaw v. Williams

    District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2018

    When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show two things: (1) that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at … Ct. at 552 (a plaintiff cannot defeat qualified immunity by defining clearly established law “at a high level of generality”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Janowski v. City of North Wildwood

    259 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 5, 2017

    “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 … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”).

    Cited 61 timesPublished
  • Grohs v. Yatauro

    984 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2013

    The qualified immunity analysis Qualified immunity protects government officials such as Defendants Yatauro and Lanigan from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or … Whether the Complaint alleges a constitutional violation that is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity Grohs’ claim that inadequate hot water at the STU impaired the safety and well-being of its residents

    Cited 210 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.