Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1800

10,000+ results

2.92s

  • Patton v. Bickford

    529 S.W.3d 717 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2016

    We also conclude that the Teachers are not immune from suit on the basis of qualified official immunity. … SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS MAKING SCHOOL POLICIES HAVE QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY; TEACHERS IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL POLICIES DO NOT .We begin by more clearly delineating the Estate’s arguments.

    Cited 121 timesPublished
  • Parker v. Armstrong

    District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 7, 2024

    Qualified immunity bars suit against officers in their official capacity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right. … Jones, 922 F.3d 309, 318 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that before the qualified immunity inquiry discretionary authority must be established)).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Opinion No.

    Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 13, 2004

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • KARA B. v. Dane County

    198 Wis. 2d 24 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Nov 2, 1995

    Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established by the constitution or á statute is insufficient clarity of established law to justify withholding qualified immunity. … Recognizing that the defendants' qualified immunity could be pierced "only if the specific right they violated was clearly established at the time they violated it," the K.H. court decided the issue against them.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Osborne v. Vincent

    District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 7, 2025

    violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78-79 (2017) (“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.”)

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Jerome Yates, Jameela Yates v. City of Cleveland, Sanford L. Currie, Officer

    941 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

    in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear

    Cited 147 timesPublished
  • Erickson v. County of Clay

    451 N.W.2d 666 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 27, 1990

    ; and that neither Mickelberg and Shoop nor Costello are entitled to any qualified immunity because their conduct in participating in the grand jury deliberations was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established norms. … the media was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established legal norms.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Hannah David v. Gina Kaulukukui

    38 F.4th 792 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2022

    Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Williamson v. … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court asks “(1) whether the [official’s] conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

    Cited 40 timesPublished
  • John Moody v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd.

    871 F.3d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2017

    Therefore, the right was clearly established. … We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment claim, and hold that the right articulated in Moody I was clearly established at the time of the violation. 2.

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • B.R. v. West Virginia DHHR

    West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2020

    In affirming the circuit court’s decision, this Court found that pleading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity. … I. reveals that this Court reviewed the pleadings and found that “[p]leading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity.” B.R.I., at *2. In B.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Camden v. Hilton

    360 S.C. 164 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 7, 2004

    “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 896 (5th Cir.1982) (“Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an officials conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Sturdivant v. Fine

    22 F.4th 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 7, 2022

    Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for violating statutory or constitutional rights that are not clearly established. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Sch., 321 F.3d 1285, 1288–89 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a teacher was not entitled to qualified immunity from a student’s claim of sexual harassment because the right had been clearly established in employment

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Gregory Baldwin v. City of Estherville, Iowa Matt Reineke, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer of the Estherville Police Department and Matt Hellickson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer of the Estherville Police Department

    915 N.W.2d 259 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 29, 2018

    to believe that their actions would not violate a clearly established right of the plaintiff's under the circumstances." 284 Conn. 502 , 935 A.2d 126 , 144 (2007). … Qualified immunity would be available "if the defendant show[ed] that the state constitutional right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established." Id. at 1094 .

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Stephen Hill v. City of Fountain Valley

    70 F.4th 507 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2023

    In short, qualified immunity applies because the Hills have not offered any factually analogous case “clearly 16 HILL V. … Because this law was clearly established at the time of the events here, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles

    360 F. Supp. 3d 1147 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

    Therefore, in the absence of authority demonstrating that the right was clearly established, Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity. … Nor can Edmiston negate that Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity on the search issue, if a search indeed occurred, in the absence of clearly established law.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Division of Employment Security v. Board of Police Commissioners

    864 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

    The Officers “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Our prior cases have clearly established that use of [a] taser on a nonfleeing, nonviolent suspected misdemeanant [is] unreasonable.” Brossart v.

    Cited 28 timesPublished
  • Max Ross v. Ed Hinton, Jr.

    937 F.2d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 1991

    Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). 8 Ross argues that the district court erred in finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. We disagree. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (state officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • John Mclaughlin v. Alex Watson

    271 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 20, 2001

    Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732 (1982) (citations omitted)). 21 In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a "clearly established" right. … In the Motion to Dismiss, Stiles clearly asserted a "qualified immunity" defense. App. at 258.

    Cited 88 timesPublished
  • Colbruno v. Kessler

    928 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

    "Because qualified immunity establishes immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ." Id. … Qualified Immunity There remains the question whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Was the law clearly established that their conduct (as alleged by Plaintiff) violated the Fourteenth Amendment?

    Cited 120 timesPublished
  • United States v. Arnott

    758 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 2, 2014

    DISCUSSION When reviewing the district court's disposition of a motion to suppress, we accept the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See United States v.

    Cited 43 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.