Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1976

10,000+ results

2.15s

  • Dorsey v. Barber

    517 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

    We may only review the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that the “appeal involves the abstract or pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law. … (2) whether that right was clearly established.”

    Cited 169 timesPublished
  • Opinion No.

    Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 13, 2000

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Lockett v. New Orleans City

    607 F.3d 992 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 5, 2010

    If the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, then qualified immunity is not applicable. … Nonetheless, the district court granted the defendants qualified immunity because it found that Lockett did not satisfy the second prong, which requires that the constitutional right was clearly established.

    Cited 53 timesPublished
  • Get Away Club, Inc. v. Vic Coleman, Jim Snyder

    969 F.2d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 13, 1992

    “If the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law *667 governing [one's] conduct." Harlow v. … Accordingly, the troopers are entitled to qualified immunity on Get Away’s civil claim for monetary damages.

    Cited 251 timesPublished
  • Gant v. United States Probation Office

    994 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 13, 1998

    In contrast to absolute immunity, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil monetary damages if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … First, the court finds that Gant has failed to allege the violation of a clearly" established right.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Drolett v. DeMarco

    382 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 16, 2010

    by qualified immunity.” … Here, we move immediately to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. We therefore consider whether plaintiff’s rights were “clearly established” at the time defendants disciplined Drolett. In Garcetti v.

    Cited 4 timesUnpublished
  • 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
  • Stevenson v. Toce

    113 F.4th 494 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 2024

    Clearly established Next, Stevenson must demonstrate that the violation of his rights was “clearly established.” Cooper, 844 F.3d at 522. … Jackson clearly established that such circumstances, if proven true, violate the Eighth Amendment.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Hardy v. Fischer

    701 F. Supp. 2d 605 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

    Qualified Immunity 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 … are accordingly entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 4 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Eng v. Coughlin

    858 F.2d 889 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 4, 1988

    of law which were “clearly established at the time an action occurred.” … Milligan’s omissions in 1983 did not then constitute a violation of Eng’s “clearly established” rights, and Milligan could properly invoke the defense of qualified immunity from suit. B.

    Cited 134 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
  • 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
  • Oliver v. Arnold

    19 F.4th 843 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2021

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a § 1983 plaintiff must state not only a constitutional violation, but a “clearly established” one. … Rejecting a 3 For the same reasons, the teacher should at a minimum have received qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established law.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • 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
  • Maness v. Daily

    Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2013

    Fitzgerald.17 Under this standard, qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established.”27 In short, because Maness cannot show pursuant to his theory of liability that the troopers violated any of his clearly established rights, the troopers are protected by qualified immunity from Maness’s excessive

    Cited 0 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.