Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1951

10,000+ results

4.64s

  • Marcus Underwood v. City of Bessemer

    11 F.4th 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2021

    While we find that Underwood’s facts make out a constitutional violation, the Officers are still entitled to qualified immunity if the violation was not clearly established. Morton, 707 F.3d at 1282. B. … Was the Right Clearly Established?

    Cited 81 timesPublished
  • Angie Waller v. City of Fort Worth Texas, e

    922 F.3d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2019

    These acts, the district court explained, violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established rights to access the courts. … “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

    Cited 184 timesPublished
  • Ramon A. Mercado v. City of Orlando

    407 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 2005

    Whether Padilla Violated Clearly Established Law. … Even though Padilla violated Mercado’s constitutional rights, he could still be afforded qualified immunity provided that Mercado’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

    Cited 368 timesPublished
  • Harrison v. Ash

    539 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2008

    2) whether that right was clearly established. … Thus, qualified immunity allows suits which allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right to go forward while insulating officers against suits that are frivolous or where a reasonable officer attempting

    Cited 462 timesPublished
  • Newton v. City of New York

    738 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 21, 2010

    .” 57 The Second Circuit has held that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if “(1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the right … Clearly Established Constitutional Right Having determined that Ryan was conducting a discretionary function, the ensuing issue for qualified immunity purposes is whether she violated Newton’s clearly established constitutional

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Jean-Gabriel Bernier v. Jeff Allen

    38 F.4th 1145 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 5, 2022

    Allen’s decision violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment right, we hold that the doctor is entitled to qualified immunity from Bernier’s damages claim. … Nevertheless, the majority rests its conclusion on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

    567 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2009

    matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … to determine whether it presents one of those occasions in which the rights are clearly established.

    Cited 993 timesPublished
  • J. D. Pflaumer, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice

    450 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1978

    at most, only the qualified immunity enjoyed by police officers. … Defendant Manno, based on the allegations of this case, is entitled to only a qualified immunity defense, requiring him to establish that his alleged action in directing the seizure of the plaintiffs’ records was done in

    Cited 33 timesPublished
  • Victor Perez v. James Cox

    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2019

    The Clearly Established Right The second part of the qualified immunity test requires that the constitutional right that has been violated was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity analysis.3 And at prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, the majority points to no authority clearly establishing that the Use of Force Regulation actually promulgated by the Nevada Department of

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Garcia v. Montgomery County

    145 F. Supp. 3d 492 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 5, 2015

    Clearly Established Right Although the Court finds a constitutional right to video record public" police activities, Officers Baxter and Malouf would still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established … Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir.2011)), it is the law of the case that such a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Delbert Johnson v. City of Fort Worth

    916 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2019

    established” qualified immunity standard. … It does not require that causation be clearly established. Indeed, Halstead cites no case requiring a heightened showing of causation in qualified immunity cases.

    Cited 78 timesPublished
  • Paul Mollica v. James A. Volker

    229 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2000

    For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … whether the right is clearly established).

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • McVey v. Stacy

    157 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 10, 1998

    right and, if so, whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time the defendant acted. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

    Cited 181 timesPublished
  • Howell v. Evans

    922 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 1991

    Absent from the order was any discussion of what the clearly established law was at the time of Howell's death, an inquiry essential to a determination of immunity. … Generally Applicable Law 16 As stated above, Harlow established the test for qualified immunity.

    Vacated on other grounds by Howell v. Evans, 931 F.2d 711 (1991)Cited 33 timesPublished
  • Johnson v. Pearson

    316 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 1, 2004

    Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … If Plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, “the qualified immunity doctrine still provides a defendant officer with immunity from suit.” Jones, 325 F.3d at 526-527 .

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Elvan Moore v. Kevin Pederson

    806 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2015

    But because the law on these points was not clearly established in this Circuit before our decision today, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment *1040 on qualified-immunity grounds to Peder-son. … In pursuit of that aim, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional

    Cited 86 timesPublished
  • Lena Davenport v. Borough of Homestead

    870 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2017

    clearly established law. … IV “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

    Cited 52 timesPublished
  • Luisa A. De Abadia v. Hon. Luis Izquierdo Mora

    792 F.2d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 27, 1986

    immunity, the law was not clearly established in plaintiff’s favor. … For now we merely hold, finding appellants to be at least reasonable in believing the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

    Cited 123 timesPublished
  • Ogborn v. City of Lancaster

    124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2002

    The Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Governmental Immunity. … This immunity provision bars the Ogborns’ claim for trespassing because the warrant clearly authorized entry onto the Property and into the structures located there.

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • Mehta v. Foskey

    877 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 29, 2012

    The defense of qualified immunity “turns on the objective legal reason *1376 ableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

    Cited 3 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.