Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters2000

10,000+ results

1.44s

  • KIRBY v. BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2024

    To overcome qualified immunity Plaintiff must establish “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Because there are no material facts in dispute that support that Plaintiff’s clearly established rights were violated, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • 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
  • Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville

    District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 27, 2025

    Sucette fails to plead facts sufficient to overcome the “clearly established” prong of Zuckerman’s qualified-immunity defense. “The ‘clearly established’ prong is difficult to satisfy.” Id. at 191 (citing Morrow v. … of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Hemostemix, Inc. v. Accudata Solutions, Inc.

    District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 28, 2022

    The facts pled by Aspire, considered in light of the contracts themselves, establish that Hemostemix took the actions a party normally takes when faced with what it feels is a breach of contract. … Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Skehan v. Village of Mamaroneck

    465 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

    If those facts would constitute a deprivation, the court should grant qualified immunity if (1) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct; or (2) the defendant’ … The individual defendants’ qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission’s liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama.

    Overruled on other grounds by Appel v. Spiridon, 531 F.3d 138 (2008)Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Nosek v. Saipan Sea Ventures, Inc.

    District Court, Northern Mariana Islands · Oct 10, 2017

    Plaintiff, as the party 10 seeking to invoke jurisdiction, has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. See Kokkonen 11 v. Guardian Life Ins. … of official immunity . . . may be resolved by Rule 12(b)(6) if clearly established by the 16 allegations within the complaint”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong

    District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 2022

    To determine whether an 1 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. 2 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … City of Anaheim, 11 343 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying qualified immunity because it is clearly established 12 that crushing an arrestee on ground despite his repeated cries for air and despite fact that his

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Kompare v. Stein

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

    The question on appeal is whether the defendants' qualified immunity protects them from suit, or more specifically, whether the defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights by allegedly violating a county … Qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Silverman v. Lane

    District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 2020

    No. 75 at 17. 25 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 26 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Furthermore, Ninth Circuit 15 precedent regarding the use of tasers indicates that qualified immunity protects officers 16 who were reasonably mistaken in their use based on the lack of a clearly established right.

    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
  • J.T.H. v. Spring Cook

    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 2022

    Qualified immunity is another story. … Here, the complaint falls short of establishing that Cook violated a clearly established right. See id.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Bonner v. Outlaw

    552 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 9, 2009

    The district court denied Outlaw qualified immunity, concluding Bonner alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … B Bonner’s right to receive notice his packages were rejected was clearly established. This Court “has taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established lav/ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry.”

    Cited 62 timesPublished
  • Boles Et Al. v. Chavis

    454 U.S. 907 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 13, 1981

    Cited 58 timesPublished
  • Morris v. Chatham County C.N.T Division

    District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jul 14, 2020

    Plaintiff contends that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because the manner in which he conducted the search violated clearly-established law.7 (Id.) … was clearly established at the time of the incident.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • HARDIMAN v. CHIEF

    District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2021

    Qualified Immunity Standard "'Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have "violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … Because "[t]he principle of fair notice pervades the doctrine" of qualified immunity, "clearly established law cannot be framed at a 'high level of generality.'"

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Veeder v. Nutting

    588 F. App'x 18 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 15, 2014

    Our jurisdiction, however, is “limited to circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law.” Escalera v. … The District Court also erred in not granting qualified immunity to defendants Hogan and Port for opening the suicide notes because they did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Monongalia County Commission A/K/A Monongalia County Sheriff's Department and John Doe Deputy v. Amanda F. Stewart, Individually and/or as Administrator of the Estate of John D. Stewart, Jr.

    West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2024

    Code § 29-12A-5 (establishing immunities from liability). … Indeed, “It is well established that . . . common law qualified immunity [is] available only for the State, its agencies, officials, and/or employees.” Kent v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Tabb v. District of Columbia

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

    immunity. … that right was clearly established — in either order).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Gellos

    District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 30, 2026

    Qualified Immunity 14 Qualified immunity shields state actors “from liability for civil damages insofar as 15 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Court, in its discretion, 26 can “address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test first.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Grigorescu v. Board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District

    District Court, N.D. California · May 24, 2024

    “When the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity 18 defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated 19 clearly established law,” the order … The 9 Ninth Circuit denied the principal qualified immunity, stating that the plaintiff’s “right to express 10 political views, even as a public school teacher, is clearly established.

    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.