Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1881

10,000+ results

4.40s

  • Phillips v. Hust

    588 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2009

    Second, assuming a constitutional violation, is Hust nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time she acted? … Rather, we proceed directly to ask whether Hust is entitled to qualified immunity. C A state officer is not protected by qualified immunity where he or she has violated a clearly established constitutional right.

    Cited 83 timesPublished
  • Bernstein v. Roberts

    405 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2005

    The Court held that this principle was clearly established so as to preclude the granting of qualified immunity. … Obviously, the legal principles the Supreme Court held were "clearly established," in 1997 are equally clearly established for the qualified immunity analysis in this case. 5 .

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Triad Associates, Inc., D/B/A Guardian Security, Jk Guardian Security Services, Inc., and K & J Management, Inc. v. Renault Robinson

    10 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 1993

    and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question?”). … The defendant asserted that he should be entitled to qualified immunity, arguing that at the time of his conduct the law failed to clearly establish that a judge’s absolute immunity does not extend to hiring and firing decisions

    Cited 99 timesPublished
  • Gray v. Detroit City

    Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

    Officer Gross is Entitled to Qualified Immunity This Court has adopted a three step analysis in determining when qualified immunity applies. Champion v. … Officer Gross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. B.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Young v. Martin

    172 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 25, 2001

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, such an official will not be found personally liable for money damages unless the official’s actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Evans v. Gordon

    District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 2024

    , and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … official violated clearly established federal law.).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Moyler v. Fannin

    District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 2023

    Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a … Fulford, 987 F.3d 299, 311 (4th Cir. 2021) (“The burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense rests on the official asserting the defense.”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • 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
  • Culver v. Armstrong

    832 F.3d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

    For our purpose, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . … To answer the probable cause inquiry posed by the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard in this case, we need look no further than Wyoming Supreme Court cases construing Wyo. Stat.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Edwards v. Alabama Department of Corrections

    81 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 14, 2000

    Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at *1252 the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart v. … The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part test for evaluating the second qualified-immunity consideration, whether the defendants’ actions violated clearly established , statutory or constitutional law.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Friedland v. Fauver

    6 F. Supp. 2d 292 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1998

    Qualified Immunity ' Defendants contend that summary judgment should be entered in their favor based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of Friedland. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Holland Ex Rel. Overdorff v. Harrington

    268 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2001

    entitled to qualified immunity. … "An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law.”

    Cited 318 timesPublished
  • Holdridge v. Blank

    255 F. Supp. 3d 1088 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 1, 2017

    Qualified Immunity Officer Blank asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., ECF No. 78 at 10. … The qualified immunity doctrine “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights-of

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Norman Knight v. Mark J. Mills, Etc.

    836 F.2d 659 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 29, 1987

    Before the district court, Mills argued that he was immune from damages due to qualified immunity. … it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

    Cited 136 timesPublished
  • Fletcher v. Burkhalter

    605 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 24, 2010

    was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Clearly Established Law Deputy Burkhalter entitles a section of his opening brief, “A Reasonable Person in Defendant’s Position Would Not Have Recognized That Deputy Burkhalter’s Actions Violated a Clearly Established

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Archer v. Chisholm

    191 F. Supp. 3d 932 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 26, 2016

    She is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff plausibly pleads that she violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Qualified immunity—validity of warrant Turning to qualified immunity, again, to overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendants violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly

    Cited 4 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
  • Delores Escobar, Individually, as Representative of the Estate of Luis Manuel Escobar, and as Next Friend of Luis Alberto Escobar, a Minor v. Harris County, Texas and Eric Goodney

    Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 31, 2014

    Clearly established law and qualified immunity After Deputy Goodney raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden of persuasion fell on Escobar to negate the defense. … If he did, then the clearly established law permits the use of deadly force. If he didn’t, then the clearly established law prohibits it.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • George E. Apostol v. Eliot Landau, Mark Gallion, and Chris Haloulos

    957 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1992

    precluded from asserting the qualified immunity defense. … We first examine whether as a matter of law officers Gallion and Haloulos are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct during the search of Apostol’s office violated clearly established rights.

    Cited 52 timesPublished
  • B.T. ex rel. G.T. v. Davis

    557 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2007

    When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (I) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … up the clearly-established issue.

    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.