Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1908

10,000+ results

2.05s

  • Albright v. Rodriguez

    51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

    Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

    Cited 114 timesPublished
  • Stone v. Peacock

    968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

    Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Guilford v. Frost

    269 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 2017

    At a minimum, Sergeant Frost is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the stop. … Young, 780 F.3d 998, 1010 (10th Cir. 2015) (“reciting the overarching requirement of probable cause does not pass muster in a qualified-immunity clearly-established-law assessment”).

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Gary Austin v. Fletcher Long

    779 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 23, 2015

    Long moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Long is not entitled to qualified immunity if Austin establishes that Long violated his clearly established constitutional rights. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 446 (8th Cir. 2010).

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Jacqueline Abel, Cross-Appellants v. Harold Miller, Cross-Appellees

    824 F.2d 1522 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1987

    On the issue of qualified immunity, the district judge stated: “I have thrown it out.” Id. at 1645. “I think there is a clearly established right ... [w]ith respect to all of the claims.” Id. at 1646. … We recently explained: [The Harlow qualified immunity] test would have little bite if a right “clearly established” at any level of generality could survive it.

    Limited by Massey, Michael v. Wheeler, Suzanne, 221 F.3d 1030 (2000)Cited 49 timesPublished
  • Silagyi v. Independent School District No 12

    District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2023

    The Court may consider both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis even though Defendants’ arguments focus on the “clearly established” prong. … Moreover, for purposes of the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity (discussed below), the block quote Plaintiffs cite is insufficient to “create a clearly established weight of authority.” Sandberg v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Crehan v. Davis

    713 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 18, 2010

    “Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … With no clearly established law in place .... ”)). 10 *697 This means that Crehan cannot defeat Officer Davis’s qualified-immunity defense w+nt “clearly establishing” her general Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Roe v. Fryer

    District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 25, 2024

    that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Wilson v. Kittoe

    229 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 7, 2002

    Clearly Established The Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest in the absence of probable cause is clearly established. See Henderson, 223 F.3d at 273 . … But, “if the test of ‘clearly established law' were to be applied at this level of generality, ... plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability.”

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Howards v. McLaughlin

    634 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2011

    “Such immunity is qualified in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In qualified immunity cases, we may look to other courts when there is no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent on point to determine if a right is "clearly established.” See, e.g., York v.

    Reversed on other grounds by Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012)Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Allah v. Goord

    405 F. Supp. 2d 265 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 13, 2005

    Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability as long as “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … However, if a violation is proven, “the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 27 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Landis v. Cardoza

    515 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 28, 2007

    Qualified Immunity The Officers claim they are entitled to summary judgment on Landis’s § 1983 claim based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity provides ‘that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Tofano v. Reidel

    61 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

    To this effect, government officials, performing discretionary functions, are afforded qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Having found the conduct of the officers to be objectively reasonable, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Cf.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • DeShawn Anderson-Santos v. Kent County, Mich.

    94 F.4th 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

    Page 7 clearly-established constitutional violation based on his version of the facts, fails to present us with a legal issue and relegates his claim to a factual dispute over which we cannot exercise jurisdiction. … of clearly established law.”

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Marcus Mote v. Debra Walthall

    902 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

    immunity as a defense.” 3 The only pure legal question we may answer at the qualified immunity stage is “whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” 4 … to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and we confine our analysis accordingly. 5 Kinney, 367 F.3d at 347 (quoting Wagner v.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Perry v. Woodruff County Sheriff Department ex rel. Barker

    858 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 5, 2017

    Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from liability for civil damages so long as their'conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have … Accordingly, Pennycook does not control this case, and we conclude that Perry’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force was clearly established in August 2009 such that Wolfe was not entitled to qualified immunity

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Mumford v. Zieba

    788 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1992

    Finally, Judge Zieba argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s damages claims because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be discharged based on his political affiliations. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his motion for summary judgment, Judge Zieba contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s claim for damages because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be terminated

    Reversed by David M. Mumford v. Joseph Zieba, Judge, in His Official and Individual Capacities Lorain County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, 4 F.3d 429 (1993)Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Robert Sean Reed v. Campbell Cnty., Ky.

    80 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

    Clearly Established Inquiry To satisfy the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, the officers’ unconstitutional conduct must violate clearly established law. Williams, 9 F.4th at 437. … Page 21 First, cases where we have found qualified immunity cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation by negative inference.

    Cited 39 timesPublished
  • Karkut v. Target Corp.

    453 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2006

    Qualified Immunity i. … If a court concludes that an officer’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity.” Id.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Church v. Anderson

    249 F. Supp. 3d 963 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 17, 2017

    Qualified Immunity 1. Standards for qualified immunity Defendants also seek summary judgment on Church’s claims on the basis of qualified immunity. … Id. at 243-45 , 129 S.Ct. 808 ; accord Bishop, 723 F.3d at 961-62 (starting and ending its analysis of qualified immunity with the second prong of the analysis, the “clearly established right” determination); Hess v.

    Cited 9 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.