Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1878

10,000+ results

1.46s

  • Winfield v. State

    172 Vt. 591 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jun 8, 2001

    Thus, if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability. Cook v. … Assessed in light of these standards, the trial court’s ruling on the issue of qualified immunity was sound.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Williams v. O'Brien

    78 Mass. App. Ct. 169 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 25, 2010

    It is well established that the MCRA incorporates the standard of immunity for public officials developed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and accordingly “public officials are not liable under the [MCRA] for their discretionary … acts, unless they have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Cody v. Weber

    256 F.3d 764 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 2001

    the policy was in order (as opposed to injunctive relief limited to the single inmate). 113 F.3d at 892 . 2 We decline the prison officials' invitation to affirm the entry of summary judgment on the alternative grounds of qualified … immunity.

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • BORONDY v. DRAHER

    District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 10, 2022

    A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity where: (1) "a closely analogous case establishes that the conduct is unconstitutional"; or (2) "the violation is so obvious that a reasonable state actor … Ct. 577, 590 (2018) (constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity analysis if "every reasonable official would interpret [then-existing precedent] to establish the particular rule the plaintiff

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Buonocore v. Harris

    65 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 12, 1995

    established’ for qualified immunity purposes.” … They do broadly assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the right “allegedly violated” was not “clearly established.” Appellants’ Brief at 20 (emphasis added).

    Cited 111 timesPublished
  • Lloyd Dela Cruz v. Kauai County Melvin K. Soong, Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Kauai

    279 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 2002

    The next step in evaluating the claim of qualified immunity, however, is to determine whether this right was “clearly established.” Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156. … Under this standard, Soong is entitled to qualified immunity. Déla Cruz has not met his burden of proving that the right allegedly violated here was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

    Cited 45 timesPublished
  • Yorzinski v. City of New York

    175 F. Supp. 3d 69 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2016

    Qualified Immunity Police officers are immune from liability in § 1983 in suits brought against them in their individual capacities if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Second Circuit has explained that “[e]ven whei’e the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Sample v. Bailey

    Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 9, 2005

    Clearly Established Right Having established that there was a constitutional violation, we turn to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established … qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Riggleman v. Clarke

    District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 4, 2024

    Amonette’s actions amounted to deliberate indifference and turn directly to … the clearly established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis.” 55 F.4th at 454. … The Fourth Circuit did not address whether the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, or specifically the second step of the qualified immunity framework—whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Stein v. Gunkel

    District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Nov 2, 2021

    Hamblen Cty., Tennessee, 969 F.3d 592, 601 (6th Cir. 2020) (noting that an unresolved question of law cannot qualify as “clearly established law” under the qualified immunity test and assuming the Farmer standard applies … If the law was not clearly established, then neither Gunkel nor Sterling could have violated Stein’s rights and qualified immunity bars Stein’s claims against them.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Joan Gruenke, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Leah Gruenke, a Minor v. Michael Seip

    225 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2000

    When the defendant violates a clearly established right about which a reasonable person would have known, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Parkhurst v. … to qualified immunity.

    Cited 186 timesPublished
  • Joe Richardson Jr v. Oakland County Animal Shelter

    Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2020

    “An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … question was clearly established, to analyze first).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Rodriguez v. Phillips

    66 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1995

    Moreover, defendants’ actions at that time must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law; otherwise, those actors are entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when the qualified immunity defense is based on a showing that an asserted right was not clearly established since the inquiry as to whether a right was or was not clearly established

    Cited 96 timesPublished
  • Mark A. Campbell v. Kevin Kallas

    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2019

    As relevant here, the judge rejected the claim of qualified immunity, concluding that caselaw clearly established a constitutional right to effective medical treatment. We reverse. … Because no case clearly establishes that denying treatment beyond hormone therapy is unconstitu- tional, qualified immunity applies regardless.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Rohan for Rohan v. Exxon Corp.

    896 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 7, 1995

    Thus, DOHSA clearly supplies the applicable law in this wrongful death case. In Miles v. … The same analysis applies to claims for mental anguish, which are clearly non-pecuniary in nature.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Orozco v. Sandoval County

    District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 27, 2020

    clearly established. … Therefore, in light of Plaintiff's failure to cite to clearly established law, the Court holds that Edwards is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Clay Blanchard v. City of Des Moines

    Court of Appeals of Iowa · Dec 4, 2024

    immunity available to the [City].” … Those questions are to be resolved early because qualified immunity not only serves as protection from liability—it protects government defendants from the risks and distractions of trial as well. See Harlow v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Lusk v. Arne

    District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 2, 2022

    The defendants present no argument as to why they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Farnham, 394 F.3d 496, 485 (7th Cir. 2005) (rejecting qualified immunity defense because it is clearly established that refusing to provide an inmate with his inhaler while he was experiencing breathing problems was a constitutional

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Scarpino v. Grosshiem

    852 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Apr 13, 1994

    Qualified immunity. Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the individual plaintiffs’ claims for damages. … Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages is available if the law as it applied to the relevant facts was not clearly established and if a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct was lawful.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Tommy D. Hopkins v. John L. Saunders

    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 1996

    Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The district court determined, however, that the right to such a hearing was clearly established by section 105.055 and thus denied the officials qualified immunity. We disagree.

    Cited 0 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.