Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1881

10,000+ results

5.87s

  • 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
  • Burt v. Carlson

    752 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 1990

    There are two kinds of immunity. One is absolute immunity, and the other is qualified or good-faith immunity. … Under qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Michael Charles Ward v. Dennis Dyke Fred Christians Robert J. Mayer Sherry Burt, Dan Bolden Donald Houseworth Robert Brown, Jr. David Haskell, Warden

    58 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 1995

    Defendants contend that Ward has failed to allege the violation of a clearly established right. … Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 IV. For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. 1 .

    Cited 127 timesPublished
  • Ralston v. Cannon

    884 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

    The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. … Procedural Background Cannon filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. 2 He asserted that to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Ralston “must show that his

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Marwan Mahajni v. Vu Do

    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2026

    On the immunity issues, it denied qualified immunity to Deputy Do, ruling that United States ex rel. Tobe was an anal- ogous case and clearly established that Deputy Do’s conduct violated Mr. … Deputy Woida is entitled to qualified immunity for a sec- ond reason—there’s no clearly established law that says that a bailiff who fails to stop someone else from making an im- proper statement to a juror violates a defendant

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Estate of Bleck ex rel. Churchill v. Martinez

    383 P.3d 39 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2014

    ’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Martinez, concluding that he could not be found to have violated clearly established Fourth

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Baptiste v. Griffin

    District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2019

    Therefore, a qualified immunity analysis is not necessary. … violate any clearly established right of Plaintiff.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Ethan James Charles v. Jeff Johnson

    18 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2021

    To lose qualified immunity, the circumstances must show that the force was clearly excessive. See Post v. … Once we determined that the use of force was ex- cessive, the next question in the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the officer violated clearly established law.

    Cited 105 timesPublished
  • Lojuk v. Johnson

    770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

    and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

    Cited 65 timesPublished
  • Gould v. Symons

    275 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 18, 2003

    entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … established principle of law and, therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Murray v. Poani

    980 N.E.2d 1275 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 14, 2012

    Qualified Immunity ¶ 33 Defendants contend if we conclude the trial court erred in determining no issue of material fact exists, we should hold plaintiffs’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. ¶ 34 … the constitutional right was clearly established.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Felder v. Allen

    29 So. 3d 897 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Aug 14, 2009

    and/or qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct of the defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Soscia Holdings, LLC v. P State of Rhode Island, et al.

    2023 DNH 074 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 15, 2023

    Qualified immunity applies where: (1) a federal right was violated, and (2) “the 21 unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Courts may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering the clearly established prong. Id.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Mark Campbell v. Cheatham County Sheriff's Dep't

    47 F.4th 468 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2022

    Therefore, we turn to whether the right was clearly established. 3 An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violates a constitutional right … “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.”

    Cited 38 timesPublished
  • Linda Sexton v. Thomas Cernuto

    18 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2021

    Qualified immunity “shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 2 The district … The qualified immunity analysis has two parts.

    Cited 28 timesPublished
  • McCue v. City of Bangor Maine

    838 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 26, 2016

    Because qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability," id. … Here, we focus on the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • Charles Waters v. B. Madson

    921 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 11, 2019

    To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege (1) a violation of his statutory or constitutional rights, and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct … De La Rosa, 852 F.3d at 745-46 (examining arguable reasonable suspicion under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

    Cited 225 timesPublished
  • Butler v. City of Norman

    992 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

    official violated the clearly established law. … In Mitchell the Court held: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery ..

    Cited 64 timesPublished
  • Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court

    30 Cal. App. 4th 713 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

    They dismiss defendants’ argument that the court failed to rule on their qualified immunity defense. … However, the qualified immunity under federal law upon which the defendants rely here does not apply if their actions violated a clearly established *731 statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should

    Cited 41 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

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.