Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters2016

10,000+ results

3.03s

  • Grenning v. Klemme

    34 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2014

    Qualified Immunity “[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 … Harrington would not be entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from arbitrary mail searches was clearly established in 2010. (ECF No. 56 at 17-18).

    Cited 95 timesPublished
  • Sarah Watkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

    102 F.4th 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2024

    “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff “must plead facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • D'AGUANNO v. Gallagher

    827 F. Supp. 1558 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 9, 1993

    Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Thus, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on Count III because they did not violate clearly established law. 4. The Right to Equal Protection Under the Law.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Benjamin v. Schwartz

    299 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 8, 2004

    Koenigsmann, and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is available to a public official whose conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Kutilek v. Gannon

    132 F.R.D. 296 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 24, 1990

    It is premised on the contention that the challenged conduct was undertaken in good faith or did not violate clearly established law or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known. … functions will be 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 have known, is resolved, discovery

    Cited 88 timesPublished
  • Charlie Wade v. Thomas Hegner

    804 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 20, 1986

    One of the defendants, Thomas Hegner, 1 also argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendant claims that the trial court erred three ways when it rejected his defense of qualified immunity.

    Cited 61 timesPublished
  • Murcia v. County of Orange

    226 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 4, 2002

    the supervisor liable were clearly established at the time of the violation. … I conclude that Bigger is entitled to qualified immunity in this situation. In essence, plaintiff argues that Bigger cannot acquire qualified immunity by accident.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Shehee v. Luttrell

    199 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1999

    immunity, finding that the law regarding Shehee’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims was clearly established. … of clearly established law.”

    Cited 1,686 timesPublished
  • J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Nation

    61 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 14, 2015

    established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualiñed Immunity Analysis.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Meyers v. Majkic

    189 F. App'x 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2006

    If a constitutional right may have been violated by the actions alleged, the defendant is only entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established. … A right is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his/her conduct was unlawful in the specific context of the case.

    Cited 1 timesUnpublished
  • Derrick Newman v. James Guedry

    703 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

    and on the § 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The officers maintain that their conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.

    Cited 244 timesPublished
  • Chateaubriand v. Gaspard

    97 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 1996

    of qualified immunity. … The district court further denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because “discharging a public employee in retaliation for protected speech violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would

    Cited 31 timesPublished
  • Anaya Serbia v. Lausell

    646 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 11, 1986

    The Supreme Court in Davis stated that: 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.” … Because the “clearly established” test has not been met the defendants met the requirements of qualified immunity and are therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for money damages.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Visser v. Magnarelli

    542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

    Fitzgerald, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Gloria Bustillos

    556 S.W.3d 394 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jun 13, 2018

    First, the federal court’s ruling was based on “qualified immunity” which evaluates whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time. … (recognizing that the terms “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used interchangeably, but that the doctrines are separate defenses; qualified immunity applies when federal law claims are raised while

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Estep v. Combs

    366 F. Supp. 3d 863 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 2, 2018

    "Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." Mitchell v. … of qualified immunity."

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • Hearring v. Sliwowski

    872 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 26, 2012

    Our Circuit’s clearly established case law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection. … to qualified immunity. 4.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Goolsby v. Dist. of Columbia

    317 F. Supp. 3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 2018

    The Court will once more exercise its discretion to begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether any constitutional violation here was clearly established. … False Arrest Beginning with the false arrest claims, the Court will again start with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether any violation by the Dispatchers was clearly established.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Morinville v. Old Colony Cooperative Bank

    579 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 10, 1984

    conduct not previously identified as unlawful____ If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … the rule could be deemed to not have been clearly established.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • McKinney v. City of Tukwila

    13 P.3d 631 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2000

    clearly established at the time it was taken." … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers' actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

    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.