Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1798

10,000+ results

2.11s

  • Tate v. Alexander

    527 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 30, 1981

    Some controversy has developed over the years concerning exactly how one can tell that a particular constitutional right has become “clearly established” for purposes of applying qualified immunity for official actions, and … was therefore not clearly established.

    Modified by Melvin Alexander, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Lamar Alexander, Governor, 706 F.2d 751 (1983)Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Roxanne Adams v. Debra Ferguson

    884 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

    Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Mullenix v. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

    Cited 123 timesPublished
  • Quinn v. Webster County, Mississippi

    District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 30, 2023

    Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … While his contention is clearly that it occurred prior to entering the cell, the allegation provides no further context as to when it happened.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Jacobi v. Holbert

    553 S.W.3d 246 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2018

    For all these reasons, the DPA is clearly a state agency to which governmental immunity is extended. … The DPA is clearly not functioning as a profit-driven entity. 3.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Long v. Underwood

    District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 4, 2019

    Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit “in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Univ., 102 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Rangel v. Lorum

    District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 23, 2019

    Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 667 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of qualified immunity for supervisor of parole agent who failed to respond to complaints by plaintiff parolee that agent was sexually harassing him). … Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms, the Eighth Amendment right of prisoners to be free from sexual abuse was unquestionably clearly established prior to the time of

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Lee v. Greene

    114 N.C. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1994

    The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … The threshold question regarding a defense of qualified immunity is whether defendants have violated a “clearly established” right. Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 313 .

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Systems Protection Board

    165 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 1999

    This is clearly not the equivalent of an 18-month suspension without pay. … While Davis involved a challenge to different tax treatment of federal and state retirees' retirement benefits, the challenge was not based on equal protection, but on a federal statute which preserves federal employees’ immunity

    Cited 40 timesPublished
  • Brosseau v. Haugen

    543 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 13, 2004

    not entitled to qualified immunity. … We grant the petition on the second, qualified immunity question and reverse.

    Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) — not on the Supreme Court's listCited 2,461 timesPublished
  • West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Billie Taylor

    West Virginia Supreme Court · May 2, 2023

    Furthermore, the circuit court found questions of fact existed about qualified immunity, namely whether DOCR violated clearly established rights of the respondent about which a reasonable person would have known, or acted … When weighing the evidence regarding qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a court is guided by the following standard: The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hitoshi Yoshikawa v. Troy Seguirant

    41 F.4th 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2022

    Because there is a circuit split, he claims that there is no clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. We are not persuaded by this argument. … Simply put, invoking McDonnell Douglas at this stage created unnecessary confusion over the clearly established law test for qualified immunity.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Brockington v. City of Philadelphia

    354 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2005

    The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are generally immune from trial ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

    Cited 62 timesPublished
  • Torres v. Goddard

    194 F. Supp. 3d 886 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 1, 2016

    Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … As a matter of law, clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes is the law clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Young v. Scales

    873 A.2d 337 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2005

    that a defendant had qualified immunity. … Thus, to overcome qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated “must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Martinique Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections

    705 F.3d 560 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

    Taken together, these sentences clearly suffice as an assertion of qualified immunity. … Dunagan focuses on whether the law regarding same- sex strip searches is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. However, No. 11-1588 Stoudemire v. Mich.

    Cited 193 timesPublished
  • Juan Hernandez v. City of San Jose

    897 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 2018

    Taking the allegations in the operative complaint as true, and reading them in the light most favorable to the Attendees, we find the Officers violated clearly established rights and are not entitled to qualified immunity … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

    Cited 120 timesPublished
  • Anthony Martinez v. James Yates

    585 F. App'x 460 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2014

    There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent dictating when a trial in state court must be severed. Runningeagle v. … However, we have held that this footnote in Lane does not qualify as clearly established federal law under federal habeas law. Collins v.

    Cited 3 timesUnpublished
  • Piphus v. Blum

    108 Ohio App. 3d 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

    would believe was lawful in light of “clearly established law” and “information possessed” at the time of the challenged conduct. … In the absence of that clearly established right, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Moritz

    39 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1987

    Appellants assert the following as their sole assignment of error: “The trial court erred in denying defendants-appellants’ good faith immunity defense where defendants-appellants violated no clearly established constitutional … Harlow holds that until the threshold question of immunity is resolved, whether the law or right which the official is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the appeal violation and whether a reasonable

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • DE MONTALVO v. DIXON

    District Court, N.D. Florida · Oct 17, 2024

    FDC Defendants also assert qualified immunity. ECF No. 32 at 24-25. III. … proceed to the next step of determining if a constitutional right was 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.