Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters2012

10,000+ results

2.00s

  • Commonwealth v. Packer

    568 Pa. 481 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2002

    This interpretation is contrary to the well-established cannon of construction that courts should generally apply qualifying words or phrases to the words immediately preceding them. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903; Midboe v. … Qualifying words “do not extend to or include other words, phrases, or clauses more remote, unless such extension or inclusion is clearly required by the intent or meaning of the context or disclosed by an examination of

    Cited 46 timesPublished
  • Borton v. City of Dothan

    734 F. Supp. 2d 1237 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 24, 2010

    Clearly Established Having found sufficient evidence of excessive force on the part of Officer Schulmerich, the court addresses the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry concerning whether the constitutional right … was clearly established at the time of the tasing.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Chimelis v. County of Suffolk

    District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 11, 2025

    Qualified Immunity Government actors may invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves from liability for civil damages “‘when [their] conduct does not violate clearly … Qualified Immunity Police Defendants then assert qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim because they contend that there is no “clearly established law

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Durstein v. Alexander

    District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 20, 2022

    Qualified Immunity Although qualified immunity is expansive, a government official “who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority … However, “in considering whether constitutional rights were clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes, we view the issue from ‘the layman’s perspective.’” Bland v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Quintanilla v. Bryson

    District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 20, 2020

    Under the Eleventh Circuit’s framework for applying this step of the qualified immunity analysis, a plaintiff must show that the allegedly violated right was “clearly established” in one of three ways. … Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189, 1209 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court erred in denying qualified immunity where plaintiff did not show law was clearly established). The Court’s own research has likewise revealed none.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • SANDERS

    District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2025

    Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Therefore, the Court need not assess the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Ely.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Roe v. Johnson County

    District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021

    No. 284—is needed to establish that Blankenship is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Jan. 18, 2021) (Under the clearly-established prong, “‘the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Sammye R. Holloway v. Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio

    220 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2000

    “[T]he actions of-a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor. Qualified immunity represents the norm.... … Even if such motivations could legitimate Brush’s actions, it would be through qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, and she has not claimed qualified immunity.

    Cited 386 timesPublished
  • Duncan v. Walker

    533 U.S. 167 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 18, 2001

    V) establishes the limitation period for filing § 2254 petitions in state capital cases that arise from jurisdictions meeting the "opt-in" requirements of § 2261. … In fact, the "argument from neighbors" shows only that Congress might have spoken more clearly than it did. It cannot prove the statutory point.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Roe v. Johnson County

    District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 18, 2021

    No. 284—is needed to establish that Blankenship is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Jan. 18, 2021) (Under the clearly-established prong, “‘the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Collins v. County of Alameda

    District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2021

    Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 8 (9th Cir. 2001) (in discussing qualified immunity, noting that “there is a clearly established 9 constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis … (if this was a prosecutorial decision) or at least qualified immunity (e.g., if she did not know the 15 full circumstances related to the second photo lineup).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Charles v. Grief

    522 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

    qualified immunity in which the trial court has determined that the factual dispute is “genuine”; only when denial of qualified immunity turns on whether a genuinely disputed fact is “material” are we authorized to review … unwarranted appeal of an interlocutory denial of qualified immunity.

    Cited 46 timesPublished
  • Santor v. Laster

    District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2020

    Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. White v. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is 15 sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Roxana Santos v. Frederick County Board of Commissioners

    725 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 7, 2013

    established’ for purposes of qualified immunity”); see also Hope v. … established for qualified immunity purposes.”

    Cited 113 timesPublished
  • ARREY

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2025

    “An official sued under § 1983 for an alleged constitutional violation is entitled to qualified immunity unless [the official] (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when he acted.” … So, Zebley is entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest the Arrey “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Allen v. City of New York

    480 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2007

    Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

    Cited 58 timesPublished
  • Pagán v. Calderón

    448 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 16, 2006

    To the extent that Calderon’s denied motion rested on the ground of qualified immunity, she appealed. See Mitchell v. … In sequential order, “[w]e consider (i) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (ii) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the putative

    Cited 150 timesPublished
  • Francis v. Coughlin

    891 F.2d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 4, 1989

    To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual's right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … clearly established.

    Cited 139 timesPublished
  • Nicholas Narducci v. Gregory Moore

    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

    The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Here, because defendants argue that Narducci’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and that the violation of this right was not “clearly established,” we will consider both issues in turn. A.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.

    464 Mich. 456 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2001

    Therefore, we hold that a plaintiff is not required to provide evidence that he is at least as qualified as the successful candidate in order to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. … We caution the bench and bar not to rely on Lytle for the proposition that a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination can be established merely by providing evidence that a qualified minority candidate was rejected

    Cited 311 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.