Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1881

10,000+ results

1.33s

  • Lynette Christmas v. Harris County, Georgia

    51 F.4th 1348 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2022

    DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for govern- ment officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … If, however, the official vio- lated the law[,] but his conduct was not clearly established as un- lawful, the court must grant him qualified immunity.

    Cited 89 timesPublished
  • Kyle v. Bedlion

    District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

    Sergeant Bedlion Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity With Respect To Kyle’s Excessive-Force Claim Because It Was Not Clearly Established That Bedlion’s Use Of Force Violated Kyle’s Fourth Amendment … violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive -force claim. B.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Henderson v. Harris County

    51 F.4th 125 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 12, 2022

    But unpublished opinions “do not establish any binding law for the circuit,” so “they cannot be the source of clearly established law for the qualified immunity analysis.” Marks v. … This court denied the officer qualified immunity.

    Cited 64 timesPublished
  • McGrew v. Duncan

    333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

    Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Peggy Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, Mississip

    905 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

    The resolution of this case turns primarily on whether these rights were clearly established, so we will begin with that step of the qualified immunity analysis. … established law. 60 He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 61 C.

    Cited 125 timesPublished
  • Ware v. James City County, Virginia

    652 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 4, 2009

    Defendants further argue that, even assuming that the arrest was unconstitutional, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights which Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a clearly established right, such that a reasonable police officer would have known,

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Trenisha Webster v. Jennifer Westlake

    41 F.4th 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

    State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 lawsuits unless they violated a federal “statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.” City & Cnty. of S.F. v. … Although the detectives violated Webster’s Fourth Amendment rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established on October 16, 2018. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 244.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Terry v. Cnty. of Milwaukee

    357 F. Supp. 3d 732 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 11, 2019

    The test for qualified immunity is (1) whether the defendants' alleged actions violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) "whether the implicated right was clearly established at the time." Jones v. … Therefore, if Bevenue did ignore Terry's cries for help as she went into labor, qualified immunity would not protect Bevenue from suit because "qualified immunity does not insulate state actors from violations of clearly

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Adair v. Hunter

    236 F. Supp. 3d 1034 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 16, 2017

    Under the doctrine of. qualified immunity, “government . officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In the alternative, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law regarding the illegality of the alleged conduct under the THRA. (Doc. 30 at 2-6).

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Morales v. Chadbourne

    235 F. Supp. 3d 388 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jan 24, 2017

    clearly established at the time of the event. … Where Director Chadbourne’s qualified immunity defense fails is.in.proving the “clearly established” prong. The evidence shows that it was clearly established in 2009 that Ms.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Anderson v. Village of Forest Park

    238 Ill. App. 3d 83 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 1992

    In addition, she argues that the Harlow immunity did not apply when the discretionary act violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, defendants had the burden of proving either that the law was not clearly established or, if the law was clearly established, that defendants neither knew nor should have

    Cited 33 timesPublished
  • Stephen Burrell v. Mike McIlroy Glen C. Rector Jeff Thorpe

    464 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 2006

    Moreover, even if Rule 41 were applicable to the search, at the time of the search the failure to serve a warrant at the outset of a search was not a clearly established violation of the constitution. … Thus, on the facts of this case, the district court did not err in finding that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

    Cited 34 timesPublished
  • Callahan v. Millard County

    494 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 16, 2007

    The district court held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Callahan did not establish that the officers violated a clearly established right. … Callahan’s rights were clearly established Having established that Mr. Callahan’s rights were violated, we now turn to whether these rights were clearly established.

    Reversed on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Mueller v. Auker

    576 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2009

    by the Court of Appeals — that Mitchell’s actions violated clearly established law....” … The legal issues involved in that appeal-whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections— are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity.

    Cited 130 timesPublished
  • Rowe v. Schreiber

    139 F.3d 1381 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

    "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 obvious to all reasonable … In this case, for qualified immunity not to apply, the right which must be clearly established is some right to have the resources of the public defender's office administratively allocated in a specific manner or the right

    Cited 119 timesPublished
  • Whitcomb v. Jefferson County Department of Social Services

    685 F. Supp. 745 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 8, 1987

    When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his asserted federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time … Defendants here have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. Therefore, I must determine whether the federal rights here asserted by the plaintiffs were clearly established at the time the defendants acted.

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Smith v. Coughlin

    727 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 28, 1989

    The remainder of this case must nevertheless be disposed of on qualified immunity grounds. 7 State officials are immune from suits for damages 8 alleging constitutional violations if it was not clearly established at the … The court further held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the officials had not violated clearly established law, citing three reasons: (1) the defendant prison officials could reasonably have

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • BD. OF COM'RS OF EFFINGHAM CTY. v. Farmer

    228 Ga. App. 819 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 15, 1997

    Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by reason of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law; in this regard

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Hurst v. Sikes

    District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 24, 2022

    Defendants then contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on each of the claims. … Similarly, Deputy Sikes is not entitled to qualified immunity. Pace v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Elder v. Holloway

    975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 1991

    In opposition to the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a “constructive entry … On the issue of qualified immunity, Elder argued in the district court that the law was clearly established that an Idaho warrant was required to make a “constructive *1391 entry” over the threshold.

    Reversed by Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510 (1994)Cited 23 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.