Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

10,000+ results

1.31s

  • Ed Rich v. Larry C. Dollar

    841 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 1988

    damages action by qualified immunity pursuant to Harlow v. … However, these factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions

    Cited 336 timesPublished
  • Brian Pearson v. Tyler Eldridge

    2022 DNH 039 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2022

    Eldridge has moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. Because Eldridge has not established that qualified immunity shields him from suit, I deny the motion. I. … right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater

    985 F.2d 1565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

    Ordinarily a litigant offering a facial constitutional challenge to a statute must establish that “no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. … To summarize, by exempting only government flags from the permit requirement, section 134.008(18) clearly restricts speech based upon its content.

    Cited 68 timesPublished
  • Foote v. Spiegel

    118 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 1997

    Defendants argued Spiegel had probable cause for the arrest and reasonable suspicion for the strip search, and that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. … did not violate clearly established law.

    Cited 511 timesPublished
  • William Felkner v. Rhode Island College

    Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Apr 20, 2023

    Further, Felkner argues that qualified immunity does not apply to his request for equitable relief and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because Felkner’s constitutional rights were established by … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hill v. Quigley

    336 F. Supp. 3d 283 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 2018

    Plaintiff also argues that references to "immunity" within the charge improperly invited the jury to speculate on the question of qualified immunity. The word "immunity" appeared twice in my charge. … The reference to "immunity" did not muddle the applicable legal standards. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court, see Hunter v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Henes v. Morrissey

    194 Wis. 2d 338 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1995

    The relevant inquiry in a qualified immunity case is: [ W]hether a reasonable state official could have believed his or her act was constitutional "in light of clearly established law and the information [he or she] possessed … The standard of objective legal reasonableness used in determining qualified immunity requires the court to focus on the degree to which clearly established case law gives guidance to officials *347 faced with a particular

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Estate of Derek Williams, Jr. v. Jeffrey Cline

    902 F.3d 643 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

    Substantive qualified immunity analysis encompasses two distinct questions: (1) whether defendants violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that "right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct … qualified immunity."

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Baar v. Jefferson County Board of Education

    686 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 19, 2010

    As the Sixth Circuit explained, “[u]nder this judicially created exception, government officials are immune from civil liability when acting in an official capacity if their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory … These two recent cases do not give clearly established guidance in our circumstances.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Moody v. City of Key West

    805 So. 2d 1018 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 26, 2001

    In order for the plaintiffs to overcome the claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the defendant officers violated clearly established law of *1022 which a reasonable person would have known. … As the case law has explained: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Dokman v. County of Hennepin

    637 N.W.2d 286 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 18, 2001

    A governmental official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would … Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have believed

    Cited 34 timesPublished
  • Perea v. Baca

    817 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 4, 2016

    Baca and Jaramillo timely appealed the denial of qualified immunity. … not violate clearly established law.

    Cited 143 timesPublished
  • Crawford v. Geiger

    131 F. Supp. 3d 703 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2015

    The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Estate of Seth Michael Zakora v. Troy Chrisman

    44 F.4th 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

    Two factors lead us away, however, from deciding this case under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity for the first time on appeal. … No clearly established constitutional right. What ought to create a stop sign at step one of qualified immunity generates a grinding halt at step two.

    Cited 143 timesPublished
  • Feigin v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc.

    1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 683 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1999

    Qualified Immunity The commissioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his summary judgment motion requesting a finding that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Whether a right is clearly established is a question of law, and, in reviewing a qualified immunity determination, we must use our full knowledge of all relevant precedents. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Lubcke v. Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority

    124 Idaho 450 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1993

    Under Harlow , Worrell is entitled to qualified immunity only if she did not violate clearly established constitutional law. … Thus, Worrell should be immune from suit *465 if: a) it was not clearly established law in 1986 that a public employee may not be terminated for her exercise of her First Amendment rights, and b) it was not clearly established

    Cited 50 timesPublished
  • Nowak v. Szwedo

    704 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 1989

    qualified immunity. … Defendants claim that qualified immunity relieves them of liability because at the time of their alleged actions there was no established case law upholding a First Amendment claim for retaliation as petty and far removed

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Jenkins v. Hale

    6 So. 3d 452 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 10, 2008

    Therefore, whether Sheriff Hale is entitled to qualified immunity from Jenkins’s § 1983 claim turns on whether the “complaint ... allege[s] the violation of [that] clearly established constitutional right.” … On a motion to dismiss a § 1983 claim because of qualified immunity, this Court looks to the complaint to determine only whether the “ ‘ “complaint ... allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Frank Minor v. Delaware River & Bay Authority

    70 F.4th 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 2023

    “To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] en- gage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff suffi- ciently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established … clearly established constitutional right.”

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Gloria Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital Dist

    891 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2018

    The district court held those allegations cannot overcome the Doctors’ and Nurses’ qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly-established. We agree and affirm on that ground. … Granting of qualified immunity on the “clearly-established” prong is not the same as holding that no constitutional violation occurred. That would conflate the two prongs of qualified immunity.

    Cited 45 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.