Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters2012

10,000+ results

4.37s

  • Friedman v. Boucher

    580 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

    Because Friedman’s rights were clearly established at the time that Defendants took the sample, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the forcible taking of the DNA sample violated Friedman’s clearly established constitutional rights, neither Boucher nor Luzaich is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 39 timesPublished
  • Fleet Hamby v. Steven Hammond

    821 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2016

    For that reason alone, they did not violate a “clearly established” right, and so they must be entitled to qualified immunity. … Even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which Hamby relies cannot do the work he asks of them. a One of the cases Hamby cites denied qualified immunity

    Cited 349 timesPublished
  • ND State University v. United States

    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2001

    "Wages usually are income, but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages." Cent. Ill. Pub. Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978). … because a tenured professor's right to substantive due process was clearly established); see also Mueller v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Walden v. Carmack

    156 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 28, 1998

    In resolving a case in which the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, this Court must determine whether the appellees asserted a violation of a federal right, whether that right was clearly established, and whether … These persons are immune from suit on the basis of qualified immunity unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Sherrod v. McHugh

    District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2018

    Accordingly, Detective McHugh is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because the stop did not violate the Sherrods’ constitutional rights or, at the very least, it was not clearly established that a stop of this … established, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia

    Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 16, 2026

    recognizing that judges may begin by considering whether a right is "clearly established"). … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, an official is immune to liability for damages when his or her "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • (PC) Hafiz v. Yates

    District Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2020

    Hines, 914 F.3d at 1230. 1 Ninth Circuit, like the courts below, proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified 2 immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ … Katz, 533 U.S. 4 194, 201 (2001) (establishing the two-part inquiry for qualified immunity: (1) whether the 5 alleged facts violate the Constitution, and (2) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was 6 clearly

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Zeigler v. Jackson

    716 F.2d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1983

    Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that public officials whose positions entail the exercise of discretion enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability in … In order to show that a defendant exercising broad discretionary power lacked good faith, plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

    Cited 123 timesPublished
  • McMahon v. City of Beardstown

    District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2024

    But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. … McMahon’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures. As a result, the Court cannot find that the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nettles-Bey v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Joseph Wheeler, Cross v. City of Pleasant Grove, a Municipal Corp., Cross

    664 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 1981

    We see no reason to disturb this finding under the clearly erroneous rule. … The district court held that the defendants in this action were shielded by the defense of a qualified immunity as set forth in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

    Cited 67 timesPublished
  • Maureen Mirabella v. Susan Villard

    853 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

    The rights allegedly violated, however, were not clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, however, we conclude that the right was not clearly established.

    Cited 121 timesPublished
  • Cleveland v. Martin

    590 F. App'x 726 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 2014

    Qualified Immunity. … With these unpublished decisions, we cannot find a clearly established liberty interest. And without such an interest, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim.

    Cited 18 timesUnpublished
  • Little v. United States

    124 Fed. Cl. 256 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2015

    In their sur-reply, plaintiffs put forth new and additional reasons on which they base their request for relief, which either were not clearly asserted previously or were entirely absent in their original complaint or amended … As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction over claims against the United States (1) founded on an express or implied contract with the United States,

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Douglas v. University of Hawaii

    District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 7, 2023

    In other words, an official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a law that was clearly established at the relevant time showed that his conduct was unlawful and “a reasonable official could not have believed” otherwise … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985) (qualified immunity protects officials unless “the law clearly proscribed the[ir] actions”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Al-Jundi v. Estate Of

    885 F.2d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1989

    from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate those rights." 28 Al-Jundi contends that, at the time of the Attica riot, the law was well-established that the

    Cited 55 timesPublished
  • Purtell v. Mason

    527 F.3d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2008

    Qualified-immunity claims are determined by reference to the two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman v.

    Cited 58 timesPublished
  • Blaine Sallier v. Deborah Brooks and Christine Ramsey

    343 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2003

    In 1993 in Lavado , when faced with a qualified immunity issue, we held that it was clearly established as of 1987 that a prisoner’s mail could not be opened and read in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. 992 F.2d at 610 … This analysis brings us to the third step of the qualified immunity: whether Sallier has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

    Cited 228 timesPublished
  • ESTATE OF FRANCES D. DEROSA v. MURPHY

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2025

    . ¶¶ 79, 80, 94.)2 On May 12, 2023, Judge Quraishi granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that because no clearly established right was violated, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Sanchez v. The Village of Wheeling

    District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 2020

    Evanston Defendants seek qualified immunity for Detective Bush, arguing that the right at issue was not clearly established. Doc. 49 at 4-9. … To avoid qualified immunity, Sánchez must show that the right was clearly established “in a particularized sense, rather than at a high level of generality.” Alicea v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Doe v. Gray

    District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2022

    Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the … Argument on probable cause collapses into the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The right to be free from warrantless arrests without probable cause has long been clearly established. Burritt v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown

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.