Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1951

10,000+ results

4.29s

  • Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand

    83 F.4th 743 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 29, 2023

    Because Plaintiffs fail to show that Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims. … “[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes . . . .” Id.

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • SWEENEY v. MULL

    District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 11, 2022

    Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129–31 (1997) (prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity for preparing and filing documents, but not for personally swearing to the truth of facts establishing probable cause, which was the function … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651–52 (7th Cir. 2001) (dismissal at pleading stage on qualified immunity grounds is often inappropriate because qualified immunity "usually depends" on the facts of the case).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Rockford Life Insurance v. Illinois Department of Revenue

    482 U.S. 182 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 8, 1987

    Davis is clearly lacking, and its absence is critical in view of the purposes behind the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. … H — < 1 — i A court must proceed carefully when asked to recognize an exemption from state taxation that Congress has not clearly established.

    Cited 51 timesPublished
  • Gawloski v. Dallman

    803 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1992

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Prison officials performing discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable prison official would have … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgement, a plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Neil Nyber v. City of Battle Creek

    Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2026

    Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry sets a high standard, and the United States Supreme Court has “aggressively enforced qualified immunity.” Morden, 275 Mich App 340-341.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Fred Watson v. Eddie Boyd, III

    2 F.4th 1106 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2021

    or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” … Accordingly, because of the district court’s incomplete analysis on both the constitutional violation and clearly established prongs, we can neither affirm nor reverse the denial of qualified immunity.

    Cited 52 timesPublished
  • Town of Southwest Ranches v. Kalam

    980 So. 2d 1121 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 12, 2008

    a clearly established right). … As Kalam’s complaint fails to show that the town officials’ conduct violated his rights in light of clearly established law, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Brodie Faughn and Billy Colvin v. Alfred Kennedy and Wayne Kennedy

    2019 Ark. App. 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 4, 2019

    Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability in an excessive-force case unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … The second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry—whether the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct— requires the victim to point to a previously decided

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Starko, Inc. v. Gallegos

    140 N.M. 136 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2006

    Qualified immunity should be recognized where, under the particular facts, it was objectively reasonable for the government official to believe that his or her acts did not violate a clearly established right. Yount v. … Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 515 , 114 S.Ct. 1019 , 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994) (describing Davis as answering the “discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • the Estate of Emzie Allen, Gloria Brown, Ind., and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries v. Polly Ryon Hospital Authority D/B/A Polly Ryon Memorial Hospital and Suklesh Dandona, M.D.

    Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 3, 2005

    purported expert is qualified. … that the person rendering the opinion . . . is a qualified medical expert.”)

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hydrick v. Hunter

    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

    To defeat qualified immunity, “the right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established.” Wilson v. … Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity pur- poses: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Carnell v. Grimm

    74 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 30, 1996

    When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability, “the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could … The second step of analysis for a qualified immunity determination is whether under the clearly established law a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct was lawful. Act Up!/Portland, 988 F.2d at 871 .

    Abrogated on other grounds by Mary Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (2018)Cited 58 timesPublished
  • Dimitris Desyllas v. Daniel Bernstine Roderic Diman John Fowler Rick Roe

    351 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2003

    rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, we need not consider the second part of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional rights were clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Michael Hampton v. State of California

    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

    Plaintiff’s due process right to familial association with her husband is therefore not “clearly established,” id. at 887 (quotation marks omitted), and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the familial-association … qualified immunity”). ** The Honorable Richard D.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Leo v. Trevino

    285 S.W.3d 470 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 8, 2006

    Constitutional Violation The first prong of any analysis of the availability of qualified immunity requires the establishment of the violation of a “clearly established right.” Beck, 204 F.3d at 638. … The School District Employees are entitled to qualified immunity from the Trevinos’ claims, absent a showing of a violation of “clearly established constitutional law.”

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Ministerio Roca Solida v. Sharon McKelvey

    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2016

    Additionally, the Court finds that qualified immunity does not apply.” … Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011) (“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages . . . .”).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Carrillo v. Rostro

    114 N.M. 607 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1992

    Applying this proposition to a request for qualified immunity, we examine whether the opposing party has presented evidence to support a violation of clearly established law, so as to require a trial on the merits. … Finding that plaintiff had this clearly established right, however, does not quite dispose of the qualified-immunity issue in this case, because in order to determine whether defendants unconstitutionally infringed her right

    Cited 75 timesPublished
  • Antonio v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Cibola

    District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 2, 2020

    Although this determination ends the qualified immunity analysis in favor of Defendants Lucero and Hildenbrant, the Court also will examine whether Plaintiff meets the second qualified immunity prong, the “clearly established … For the above reasons, the Court determines that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she meets the clearly established right requirement, the second qualified immunity prong, necessary to defeat qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • McGarry v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners for the Cnty. of Lincoln

    294 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2018

    The Court concludes that: (i) Wood used excessive force, but he is entitled to qualified immunity, because the right was not clearly established; (ii) the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution … Although the Tenth Circuit has recognized a sliding scale for qualified immunity's clearly established inquiry, see Casey v.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Lyons v. City of Lewiston

    666 A.2d 95 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 19, 1995

    “The two-part test for denial of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that … As we have recently stated, The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in fight of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the

    Cited 10 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.