Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

10,000+ results

1.63s

  • Poolaw v. Marcantel

    565 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 4, 2009

    Concluding that these Fourth Amendment principles were clearly established when the incidents occurred, the court denied qualified immunity. Marcantel and Hix now appeal. … City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205, 1211-12 (10th Cir.2008) (“[T]he clearly established weight of authority from other courts” establishes a right for the purposes of qualified immunity.).

    Cited 61 timesPublished
  • Morrison v. Board of Trustees of Green Tp.

    583 F.3d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2009

    This right was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002. See id. at 641 . … Violation of Clearly Established Right Officer Celender finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, even if he *408 violated Amanda’s constitutional rights, because it was not clearly established at the time

    Cited 242 timesPublished
  • Waller v. State

    64 Wash. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1992

    The Meyers court determined that the proper qualified immunity test was whether the conduct complained of "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … The qualified immunity question is whether the caseworkers' actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Meyers , at 1158.

    Cited 39 timesPublished
  • Meredith Coleman v. Nyal Frantz, Sheriff of Wells County, Indiana

    754 F.2d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1985

    Since Frantz did not violate any then clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known, he was justified in asserting the qualified immunity defense. … Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct. 2502 , 65 L.Ed.2d, 555 ), and that the qualified immunity is unavailable to defendants where the statutory right in such cases is clearly established.

    Abrogated in part, on other grounds by William J. Benson v. Robert H. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268 (1986)Cited 120 timesPublished
  • Zimmerman v. Doran

    807 F.3d 178 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … We have held that “ ‘[consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest, but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.

    Cited 35 timesPublished
  • Heard v. Bear

    District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2020

    Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Van Beek v. Robinson

    879 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2012

    Clearly Established Law To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must also demonstrate that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation. … Defendants claim that the detention and search of Plaintiff is not “clearly established” as unlawful, and they, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court disagrees.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Liska v. Dart

    60 F. Supp. 3d 889 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 2014

    “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, a court considers “(1) whether the plaintiffs allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Africa v. City of Philadelphia

    809 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1992

    “Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law’.” Davis v. … “clearly established” law and the information he possessed at that time.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Mich. Interlock, LLC v. Alcohol Detection Sys., LLC

    360 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 27, 2018

    Qualified immunity "shield[s]" public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In other words, Secretary Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity in her personal capacity because, at the time of the Order, it was not clearly established that she might violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Doe v. Knox County Board of Education

    918 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 6, 1996

    Qualified Immunity The Board members and superintendent argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the claims against them in their individual capacities. … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are immune from personal liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Braun v. Maynard

    652 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

    Previous cases need not be on all fours with the current one to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. See Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 362-63 (4th Cir. 2001). … In the qualified immunity context, these factors counsel against hastily concluding that the law clearly forbade the officers’ conduct.

    Cited 66 timesPublished
  • Howard Linden v. City of Southfield, Mich.

    75 F.4th 597 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2023

    And for qualified immunity purposes, any lack of clarity in Willis would only support the First Responders’ position that Linden has failed to identify a “clearly established” right. Sumpter, 868 F.3d at 480. … Unpublished cases cannot clearly establish law for purposes of qualified immunity. See Bell v. City of Southfield, 37 F.4th 362, 367 (6th Cir. 2022).

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • Adeline Lennon v. Chief William P. Miller, the City of Troy, Patrolman Donald J. Backaus, and Patrolman Peter Gordon

    66 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 1995

    ’s clearly established constitutional rights. … his ... actions did not violate any of those clearly established rights.

    Cited 683 timesPublished
  • Swint v. City Of Wadley

    51 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

    by ... clearly-established law." … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

    Cited 156 timesPublished
  • Jones v. United States

    878 F. Supp. 1290 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 7, 1995

    established law with sufficient precision so as to allow the defendants to formulate a motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds.” … since there are no material facts in dispute which show that Defendants’ conduct violated' clearly established law.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Marshall v. Board of County Commissioners for Johnson County

    912 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jan 22, 1996

    in a qualified immunity case according to clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … 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 1 timesPublished
  • Young v. County of Fulton

    999 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 6, 1998

    Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established right of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendants Pape, Lockwood, Johannes, and Hasenfuss, are therefore immune from liability under qualified immunity doctrine.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Paul Tarashuk v. Jamie Givens

    53 F.4th 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 8, 2022

    of material fact barred a ruling on qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. … Appellants also argued, in the alternative, that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the particular right allegedly violated was not clearly established.

    Cited 46 timesPublished
  • Nicholas C. Wade v. Solomon Daniels

    36 F.4th 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2022

    medical needs—which, as addressed in the following sections, he cannot—qualified immunity applies because Wade failed to show that the defendants violated clearly established law. … Because there is no clearly established law that placed Investigators Daniels, Jones, and Wilson on notice that their actions violated Wade’s constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s medical

    Cited 27 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.