Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.86s
Thomas Cress v. Carmen Palmer, Warden, Riverside Correctional Facility
484 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 2007
The district court concluded that because the Supreme Court has not clearly established that post-conviction destruction is a due process violation, the petitioner’s claim in this regard could was not cognizable on federal … Clearly, it is a burden that the petitioner in this case has not been able to carry successfully. III.
Cited 231 timesPublished151 Vt. 178 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Feb 17, 1989
So, too, we find that none of the alleged actions by the assistant attorneys general violated clearly established laws or rights, and we thus conclude that they also meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test. … In addition, their appearance violated no clearly established rights of plaintiff.
Overruled on other grounds by Muzzy v. State, 155 Vt. 279 (1990)Cited 61 timesPublished458 P.3d 533 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2018
Comm’rs of Curry Cty., 7 2001-NMCA-065, ¶ 30, 130 N.M. 753, 31 P.3d 1027 (concluding that the 8 defendant officers were “not entitled to qualified immunity” where “the relevant 9 law was clearly established”). … We, therefore, conclude that Plaintiff has not met her burden to 10 overcome Defendant’s qualified immunity claim because she has not shown that 11 the right arguably violated was clearly established. 12 II.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. New York · Mar 11, 2021
“[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … Instead, “[a] defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’” McEvoy v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownWalker v. Clearfield County District Attorney
413 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 2011
The Supreme Court has held that when prosecutors perform investigatory functions, like determining whether there is probable cause to arrest a suspect, they are entitled only to qualified, and not absolute, immunity. … Thus, to the extent that Walker’s complaint concerns Shaw’s pre-indictment investigation of the allegations against Walker, Shaw is entitled only to qualified immunity.
Cited 26 timesUnpublished165 Idaho 611 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2019
rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” … Nevertheless, despite the need for a jury in this bifurcated process, the ultimate legal questions of clearly established rights, potential violations of those rights, and entitlement to qualified immunity must remain in
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 16, 2019
Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability unless they violate “clearly established” federal law at the time they acted. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Taking the second qualified immunity question first, Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under the Equal Protection Clause not to be discriminated against by the City on the basis of race
Cited 0 timesUnknown423 N.W.2d 671 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 1988
The test for immunity became whether the officials’ conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reason *675 able person would have known.” … The court of appeals found the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment were clearly established at the time of the incident. Creighton v. City of St.
Cited 175 timesPublished966 F.2d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1992
Fitzgerald for determining qualified immunity, see 457 U.S. 800, 819 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (Í982) (whether an official is protected by qualified immunity depends upon the “objective legal reasonableness” … We agree with McDonald that Black clearly establishes that the force described in the complaint, if true, was constitutionally proscribed.
Cited 171 timesPublishedKrites v. Wayne County Schools Career Center Board of Education
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2023
“To avoid the shield of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must properly plead ‘facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … Defendants assert that Defendant Crain4 “is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Plaintiff failed to establish that her due process rights were violated.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownMarques A. Johnson v. James Dunn
83 F.4th 896 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2023
Dunn moved to dismiss Count I of both the initial and amended complaints on the ground that the doctrine of qualified immunity immunized him from suit. … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I stop here and conclude that Officer Dunn is entitled to qualified immunity and that we need not address the first prong.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDillon Burnett v. Josh Griffith
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2022
Whether Sergeant Griffith is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil-damages liability for violations of “clearly established statutory or constitutional … established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis.
Cited 0 timesPublished225 Ariz. 484 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 28, 2010
Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if a reasonable government official could have believed his actions to be lawful, in the light of clearly established law and the information he possessed … Officials are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity, unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions” that were taken. Mitchell v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedBisbal-Ramos v. City of Mayagüez
467 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 11, 2006
A public officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violated a plaintiff's constitutional right and if, at the time of the violation, the right was so clearly established that it would have been clear to a reasonable … It was clearly established by Branti v.
Cited 54 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 2022
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) ("[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether … "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMarshall v. County of San Diego
238 Cal. App. 4th 1095 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2015
The defense of qualified immunity "A government official sued under [section] 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … immunity unless they violated a "clearly established" constitutional right.
Cited 19 timesPublishedKelly McSean v. Chris Chamberlain
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024
Foote, 782 F.3d 968, 969-70 (8th Cir. 2015) (complaint may be sua sponte dismissed on preservice screening based on qualified-immunity defense if it is established on face of complaint); cf. … Beard, 97 F.4th at 1115-16 (affirming denial of qualified immunity on unreasonable-search claim because it was clearly established that a degrading, humiliating, or abusive strip search of an arrestee violated the Fourth
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.
Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024
Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.
Cited 0 timesPublished439 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 3, 2006
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials from civil liability when “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … was one of clearly established law.
Cited 33 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2008
But the court denied the defendants’ request for qualified immunity on Back’s political-affiliation claims, holding that Back had adequately alleged a clearly established constitutional violation. … P. 12(b)(6), so we review an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law,” Mitchell v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna