Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1924

10,000+ results

1.64s

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Bouchard v. Whetstone

    772 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 24, 2011

    To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must establish “that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right.” Albright v. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Officers Whetstone and Jimenez assert the defense of qualified immunity. *1359 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability

    Cited 1 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
  • Perez v. Ellington

    421 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 22, 2005

    This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. … It is first necessary to determine exactly which clearly established constitutional right Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated.

    Cited 59 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.