Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

10,000+ results

1.39s

  • Woodhead v. Ridener

    District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 8, 2022

    to juror to conclude that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. … However, under the present circumstances, the defendants cannot be said to have violated any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Wendell Smith v. Pike County, Kentucky

    338 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

    The district court held that in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right to the specific medical treatment in question, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999), the district court correctly held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Saucier v.

    Cited 8 timesUnpublished
  • Kitrich Powell v. James Gibbons

    453 F. App'x 712 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 2011

    Dismissal was proper on Powell’s claim concerning the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Wallingford v. Olson

    592 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2010

    Deputy Olson appeals the dis *890 trict court’s denial of qualified immunity. We reverse. I. … a constitutional right’ and (2) whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.

    Cited 36 timesPublished
  • Kerrin Barrett v. PAE Government Services, Inc.

    975 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

    of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Because the undisputed evidence establishes that the Arlington County defendants had probable cause to detain Plaintiff, qualified immunity bars her § 1983 claim under the first prong of the qualified immunity test, and

    Cited 66 timesPublished
  • Cronin v. Town of Amesbury

    895 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 1995

    Qualified Immunity In any event, Koelsch asserts the defense of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity inquiry in this context is a familiar one: Qualified immunity shields government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

    Cited 31 timesPublished
  • Anita Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights

    858 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 2017

    Qualified immunity. … Because no case clearly established the unlawfulness of the decisions made during Omar’s arrest and detention, the officers involved are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 137 timesUnpublished
  • Fox v. Coughlin

    893 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 4, 1990

    The district court denied Fox’s motion and granted the appellees’ cross motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they were protected by qualified immunity because Fox did not have a “clearly established” right to assistance … These reasons satisfy the flexible standard set forth in Wolff , and bars Fox’s § 1983 claim against DiLoreto under qualified immunity.

    Cited 36 timesPublished
  • Wiley v. Doory

    14 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 27, 1994

    The only issue before this Court is whether Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 I Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s “conduct does not violate … Thus, appellant Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the order of the district court regarding the availability of qualified immunity to Doory as to the Fifth Amendment claims is REVERSED. .

    Cited 82 timesPublished
  • Sciotto Ex Rel. Sciotto v. Marple Newtown School District

    81 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1999

    Qualified Immunity Defendants James Smith and Stu Nathans claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ suit. The defendants have met their burden of pleading a qualified immunity defense, Gomez v. … a right for qualified immunity purposes.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • (PC) Petillo v. Jasso

    District Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2023

    If the law 18 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 19 based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … Willden, 26 678 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity analysis requiring (1) determining the 27 contours of the clearly established right at the time of the challenged conduct and (2) examining 1

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Holland v. Valhi Inc.

    22 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 1994

    Amalgamated failed to establish that its computation, in fact, was consistent with the requirement of the regulations. … Pensions § 13 (1987); see also ERISA § 3(35), 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (35), and if "qualified” under 26 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., is subject to favorable Internal Revenue Service treatment. .

    Cited 43 timesPublished
  • ZISA v. HAVILAND

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2020

    Haviland does not address whether his alleged constitutional harm violated a clearly established right. “[T]he burden of pleading a qualified immunity defense rests with the defendant.” Thomas v. … App’x 373, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2004) (“To the extent the Supervisory Defendants fail to address the issue [of whether a right was clearly established], therefore, their claim for qualified immunity fails ipso facto.”).

    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
  • Paez v. Nutsch

    District Court, D. Nebraska · May 12, 2022

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • 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
  • Lojuk v. Johnson

    770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

    and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Joanne Joyce, Individually and as of the Estate of James D. Joyce v. Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, John R. MacKey Alfred Donovan and Robert Budryk

    112 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 29, 1997

    Because qualified immunity turns primarily on an appraisal of existing case law, oral argument has been deemed unnecessary. … But the en banc court is agreed that qualified immunity applies, and there is less consensus about the underlying constitutional issue.

    Cited 54 timesPublished
  • Harris v. The City of Texico

    District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 7, 2023

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … violation was clearly established.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • McCormick v. Hall

    District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 8, 2022

    qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff has pleaded a plausible violation of a right clearly established at the time of the incident, Hall is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

    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.