Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters2016

10,000+ results

6.17s

  • Porter v. MASSARELLI

    303 Ga. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2010

    (a) Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … clearly established law.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Jok v. City of Burlington, Vermont

    District Court, D. Vermont · Feb 14, 2022

    Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … City of Detroit, 936 F.3d 410, 425 (6th Cir. 2019) (denying qualified immunity and finding an officer’s slamming of an arrestee into a wall violated clearly established federal law); see

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Meli v. City of Burlington, Vermont

    District Court, D. Vermont · Feb 14, 2022

    Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) (“An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used … In assessing whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court can begin with the “clearly established” inquiry first, and if it finds that a right was not clearly

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Ralph Harrison Benning v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections

    71 F.4th 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2023

    The Supreme Court re- cently summarized this aspect of the qualified immunity inquiry: Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, because the law was not clearly established, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Ms. Edgar and Ms. Patterson are en- titled to qualified immunity on Mr.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • David N. OSOLINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lt. KANE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

    92 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 1996

    immunity, typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established’.” … “Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Allen v.

    Cited 219 timesPublished
  • Baer v. Leach

    2014 DNH 214 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 24, 2015

    Finally, Baer argues that Leach cannot be entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from arrests unsupported by probable cause is clearly established, and because a reasonable officer would have known … Determining whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes requires assessing the right “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Mullenix v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • McGreal v. AT & T Corp.

    892 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 2012

    Qualified immunity can be grounds for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right. Landstrom v. Ill. … In Tamayo , the Seventh Circuit reversed a dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity because “[tjaking all facts pleaded in [the plaintiffs] complaint as true, the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Hicks v. Leffler

    119 Ohio App. 3d 424 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

    First, with regard to immunity for a federal claim, in order to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have … Taken together, Hunter and Harlow stand for the proposition that, where the law has been clearly established, a mistaken decision made in extraordinary circumstances may not lead to loss of immunity.

    Cited 66 timesPublished
  • Melissa Hearring v. Karen Sliwowski

    712 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2013

    clearly established.” … Dragovic, 576 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2009) (addressing the clearly established prong first in the qualified-immunity analysis).

    Cited 64 timesPublished
  • Isely v. Capuchin Province

    877 F. Supp. 1055 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 7, 1995

    General Electric Company, supra, make clear that the initial foundational requirement a proponent of expert scientific testimony must meet as a pre-requisite to admissibility is to establish that the witness is qualified … It was in Frye that the "general acceptance” requirement was first established. 4 .

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • McCartney v. May

    50 S.W.3d 599 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 7, 2001

    overcome their entitlement to qualified immunity. … ’s qualified immunity on May’s substantive due process claims.

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • Vitalone v. Curran

    665 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 17, 1987

    The court held that Anderson did not enjoy qualified immunity, because “the Creightons’ fourth amendment rights and the ‘exigent circumstances’ doctrine were ‘clearly established’ on [the date of the search].” … Thus, to win summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, defendants must establish either that the law establishing the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, or that, in light of the facts and circumstances

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Katrina McGrew v. Sergeant Duncan

    937 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2019

    Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit if (1) they did not violate any of McGrew’s constitutional rights or (2) the violated rights, if any, were not “clearly established” when they acted. Pearson v. … So whether they are entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether McGrew suffered an injury and whether the right she claims they violated was clearly established when they acted.

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • Michael Hampton v. State of California

    83 F.4th 754 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

    “The doctrine of 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.’” … To be clearly established, the relevant right must have been defined more narrowly.

    Cited 62 timesPublished
  • Rodriguez v. Passinault

    637 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

    Garner[, 471 U.S. 1 (1985),] provides a ‘clearly established’ right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.” Id. at 347. … Thus, Pierce is entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 878.

    Cited 41 timesPublished
  • William Manery v. Jason Lee

    124 F.4th 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

    An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Jason Carter v. Mark Ludwick

    139 F.4th 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

    On count two, evidence concealment in violation of due process, the court granted qualified immunity because it was an “entirely novel claim” that was not clearly established. … Carter’s argument does not survive the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Kayla Robinson v. Angela Hawkins

    937 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2019

    In considering a defense of qualified immunity, the law must not be examined at a high level of generality: “The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” … Rulings declaring the violation of a “clearly established right” require careful attention, because “qualified immunity is important to ‘society as a whole,’ and because as ‘an immunity from suit,’ qualified immunity ‘is

    Cited 51 timesPublished
  • Garmon v. Lumpkin County

    878 F.2d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

    The district court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. 2 On January 22, 1986, Mrs. … Garmon's warrant was issued without probable cause he nevertheless is shielded from liability for damages under the rule of qualified immunity.

    Cited 22 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.