Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

10,000+ results

2.55s

  • (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
  • Matthews v. Foss

    District Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 2024

    Saucier, 25 533 U.S. at 202. 26 A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the 1 was clearly established such that it would … , 533 U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 6 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 7 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Hanson v. Blaine County

    District Court, D. Idaho · Sep 19, 2019

    Defendants stress that Escondido reiterated that for purposes of qualified immunity, “the clearly established right must be defined with specificity” and “repeat[ed] its holding from Kisela [v. … Defendants believe that the Court “needed to identify cases with particularized facts to show that the Defendants’ acts were clearly unlawful” to deny them qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • 2

    Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2016

    Qualified immunity is unavailable where,  22 as here, the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional  23 rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise.   … In Ricciuti, the panel held that fabrication of evidence  13 violated a “clearly established constitutional right[]” and thus the officers were  14 not entitled to qualified immunity. 

    Cited 0 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
  • Melville v. Southward

    14 Brief Times Rptr. 608 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 14, 1990

    Hogan, 292 Or. 154 , 637 P.2d 114 (1981) (orthopedic surgeons were properly qualified to testify on standard of care for podiatric surgery where foundation evidence established that orthopedic and podiatric procedure, practice … Clearly, when a proper foundation establishes that the expert witness, by reasons of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, is so substantially familiar with the standard of care applicable to the defendant

    Cited 51 timesPublished
  • Kompare v. Stein

    801 F.2d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 4, 1986

    violate clearly established rights. … Any doubt as to whether the prosecution was without probable cause must be *892 resolved in favor of the defendant because she has qualified immunity unless she violated a clearly established right.

    Cited 70 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
  • 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
  • Germaine Smart v. COII Ronald England

    Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2024

    He found that qualified immunity barred Smart’s complaint because no clearly established law pro- hibited the officials from disciplining Smart. … Defendants cannot benefit from the shield of qualified immunity by arguing the law was not clearly established.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Michael v. State

    115 P.3d 517 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2005

    Applying the clearly erroneous standard of review, the court of appeals affirmed the superior court’s rejection of Michael’s proposed mitigating factors. … ’s rejection of Michael’s proposed mitigating factors under a clearly erroneous standard.

    Questioned by Pocock v. State, 2012 Alas. App. LEXIS 31 (2012)Cited 28 timesPublished
  • 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
  • Varnado

    District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Nov 25, 2025

    Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that (1) the defendant violated an actual constitutional or federal statutory right that is clearly established … The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official's conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • 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
  • Estate of Sylville K Smith v. City of Milwaukee Wisconsin

    District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 18, 2019

    Whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of its alleged violation In establishing the second prong in the qualified immunity analysis, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional … right was “clearly established.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Joe Abbott v. E. Tootell

    631 F. App'x 487 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 2016

    ruling on qualified immunity, George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm. … Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (setting forth qualified immunity test and recognizing that a clearly established right does “not require a case directly on point”).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Bailey v. Kennedy

    349 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

    As discussed below, accepting the facts as the district court2 viewed them in denying qualified immunity, the police officers vio- lated clearly established federal law. … the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law."

    Cited 146 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
  • United States v. Rosales-Bruno

    676 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2012

    From there, Rosales-Bruno argues that the government failed to establish that he did, in fact, employ “physical force” when he committed the offense of false imprisonment. … We find, however, that Rosales-Bruno clearly objected to specific parts of Paragraph 30 of the PSR, disputing the factual accuracy of that paragraph’s description of the conduct underlying his false imprisonment conviction

    Cited 47 timesPublished
  • Estate of De'Angelo Brown v. West

    District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 30, 2022

    Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis). Moore, 514 F.3d at 760. … Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis).

    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.