Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters2012

10,000+ results

1.89s

  • Fernander v. Bonis

    947 So. 2d 584 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 3, 2007

    We first address Fernander's claim the trial court erred in finding that Captain Bonis was entitled to qualified immunity as to Fernander's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claims. … A plaintiff suing a government official has the burden of showing that the official's acts, at the time, violated clearly established law." Alexander v. Univ. of N. Fla., 39 F.3d 290 , 291 (11th Cir.1994).

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Mark Lyon v. S. Thacker

    517 F. App'x 564 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 23, 2013

    Dismissal of Lyon’s claims for damages was proper because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Cory Burnett v. Phillip Smith and State of Iowa

    Supreme Court of Iowa · May 5, 2023

    These include whether qualified immunity is available and what the standard should be, Baldwin I, 915 N.W.2d at 279–81; whether judicial process immunity is available, Venckus v. … Supp. 3d at 953 (“For the same reasons they must be denied federal qualified immunity on Clinton’s § 1983 claim, Officers Garrett, Steinkamp, and Minnehan must also be denied immunity under state law.”); Williams, 516

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Roska Ex Rel. Roska v. Peterson

    304 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

    Whether the law was “clearly established.” … Amendment principle was “clearly established.”

    Abrogated in part, on other grounds by Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230 (2003)Cited 25 timesPublished
  • Davis v. Bradshaw

    District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2020

    Pridmore, 961 F.3d 1135, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 2020) (stating that identification of a broad, clearly established principle is one way to show that a defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right … Davis has not carried his burden to show that Deputy Jones is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Keating v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Ramirez v. Killian

    District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2022

    The qualified-immunity analysis requires that a right be “clearly established.” See id. … violated clearly established law.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Deborah Franklin v. City of Charlotte

    64 F.4th 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 4, 2023

    In which case, Officer Kerl violated clearly established law. … Therefore, she is not entitled to qualified immunity on Mrs.

    Cited 53 timesPublished
  • Estate of Marvin L. Booker v. Gomez

    745 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 11, 2014

    Qualified Immunity—clearly established law Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did -40- not violate clearly established law. … Booker’s serious medical need and (b) this would violate clearly established law, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. a.

    Cited 529 timesPublished
  • Merriman v. Walton

    856 F.2d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

    The court characterized the question in terms of probable cause and an assertion of qualified immunity. … (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiff’s] warrantless [arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Department of Environmental Protection v. Franklin Tp.

    3 N.J. Tax 105 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 4, 1981

    , it would have clearly so stated. … Washington Tp., both supra, establish that property acquired by a state agency otherwise entitled to an exemption from taxation is not immune from the imposition of rollback taxes once a change in use has occurred.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Quinton Brown v. Larry Adams

    667 F. App'x 265 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2016

    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that denying Brown’s religious texts … See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 741 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established only if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Knepper v. Genstar Corp.

    537 So. 2d 619 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1988

    Knepper, having worked in the explosives industry for over twenty-five years selling explosives and implementing their on-site use, had established a large clientele. … Where the circumstances and content of allegedly defamatory statements are clearly disputed by the parties, the jury should determine, under proper instructions from the court, whether or not the communication was privileged

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Patricia Littrell v. Daniel Jake Franklin

    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 2, 2004

    The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires courts “to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Specific findings on these questions of fact would have enabled the district court to address the legal issue of qualified immunity through reference to excessive force standards that are clearly established.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • King v. Ambs

    Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

    established and Officer Ambs would be entitled to qualified immunity. . . . … Ambs’s conduct vis-a-vis the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hails v. Dennis

    District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 14, 2018

    Forsyth the Supreme Court reiterated that “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the … of a clearly established constitutional right.’ “).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Thompson v. City of Dallas

    District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 24, 2024

    “The reasonableness of the official’s conduct and the degree to which the particular right in question was clearly established are thus merged into one issue for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.” … And, if evidence did, Thompson has not carried his burden as to qualified immunity’s clearly established prong to the extent that he relies on “Cole v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • West v. Kind

    District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 12, 2024

    Most of the time, the reason for dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds is the lack of a clearly established constitutional right. … “Ultimately, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Kerns v. Bader

    663 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2011

    In other words, the district court’s opinion addressed only the first part of the two part test for qualified immunity. What to do when the district court fails to address the second, clearly established law, element? … And it proceeds to deny qualified immunity to all three defendants without pausing to address the clearly established law question. To be sure, the dissent appears very concerned by the fact that Mr.

    Cited 154 timesPublished
  • (PC) Abdullah v. Dacuycuy

    District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

    Qualified Immunity 5 Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the actions they took 6 were not clearly unconstitutional. (ECF No. 52-1 at 21.) … (Id.) 9 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 10 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Conway

    152 Vt. 363 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Aug 25, 1989

    first impression in a manner “not clearly foreshadowed”), and where its retroactive application would be inequitable. … First, we do not see this case as establishing a new rule of law..

    Cited 39 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.