Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1967

10,000+ results

3.98s

  • State v. Haley

    687 P.2d 305 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1984

    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. … We do not believe that the law governing the constitutional issues in this case was so clearly established that Charney and Erickson should be denied official immunity.

    Cited 48 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
  • Maurice Hardaway v. Brett Meyerhoff

    734 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2013

    The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officers from liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

    Cited 236 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
  • 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
  • S.W. v. Clayton County Public Schools

    185 F. Supp. 3d 1366 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 12, 2016

    Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Townsend or Jackson violated a clearly established constitutional right, meaning they are entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims. D.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Lesley v. Department of Social & Health Services

    83 Wash. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 26, 1996

    CASEWORKER AND STATE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We next address whether Maurer is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … To receive qualified immunity under section 1983, a state official performing discretionary functions must show that the official’s conduct "[did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

    Declined to follow by Petcu v. State, 86 P.3d 1234 (2004)Cited 48 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
  • Kincade v. City of Blue Springs

    64 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 1995

    “Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Buzek v. … law, cannot be “clearly established.”

    Cited 111 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
  • Kies v. City of Aurora

    149 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2001

    The Seventh Circuit has noted in the context of qualified immunity that if the plaintiffs’ initial pleadings themselves, taken as true, fail to adequately allege the violation of any clearly established right, dismissal for … The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

    Cited 8 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
  • Jones v. Stine

    843 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 10, 1994

    They are shielded by qualified immunity. … Because the asserted right was found not to have been clearly established, the Gawloski court held the defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • In Re City of Philadelphia Litigation

    158 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 1998

    We disagree with both contentions. 33 It is axiomatic that the qualified immunity inquiry focuses on whether an official's conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … were clearly established at the time of the official's conduct.

    Cited 162 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Fortner v. Thomas

    983 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1993

    clearly established law.” … It is well established that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability as long as the officials could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established

    Cited 87 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
  • Thompson v. Spikes

    663 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 22, 1987

    to trial, and that entitlement to qualified immunity turns on "the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … been violated are all “clearly established.”

    Cited 6 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.