Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1974

10,000+ results

3.12s

  • Clark v. Coleman

    District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 24, 2020

    To evaluate qualified immunity claims, the Fourth Circuit has adopted a two-step analysis: (1) Whether a clearly established right has been violated, and (2) whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position “would … Nev. 2018) (“And because it is clearly established that a citizen has the First Amendment right to criticize officers, even with profanity, Dennett is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Jonathan Turmon v. Charles Jordan, Individually, and Red Roof Inns, Incorporated

    405 F.3d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

    The doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary duties “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Jordan violated Turmoris Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and because that right was clearly established on March 10, 2001, Jordan is not entitled to qualified immunity on the illegal seizure

    Cited 39 timesPublished
  • Jennings v. Patton

    644 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

    B The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil, damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … ; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. 3 Id. at 815-16 (citing Saucier v.

    Cited 47 timesPublished
  • Grendell v. Gillway

    974 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 11, 1997

    immunity and, consequently, the question of whether this right was clearly established at the time Gillway acted. … qualified immunity.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Snow v. City of El Paso, Texas

    501 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2006

    Qualified immunity shields public officials from both civil damages and trial “if their actions were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Bazan v. … The Court employs a two step process to resolve a qualified immunity defense. First, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established Constitutional *835 right.”

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Saleem Bashir v. Rockdale County, Georgia

    445 F.3d 1323 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2006

    Thus, Bashir has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis by demonstrating that his warrantless arrest was unlawful. 2. Clearly Established Law. … The next question we address in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

    Abrogated on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)Cited 188 timesPublished
  • 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9002, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,739 Sinaloa Lake Owners Association Robert A. Ain Diantha Ain Leonard Bellenson Ann Bellenson v. City of Simi Valley, and Roger Stephenson James Doody Vernon H. Persson David Jacinto James E. Ley Howard McEwan of the Estate of Sheldon McEwan

    70 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 1995

    were not in dispute. 10 Once a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity, "the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively … that the law was clearly established, Doody was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because "a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed breaching the dam was lawful."

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Jenkins v. Talladega City Board of Education

    95 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

    the Anderson Court’s clarification of the appropriate level of generality at which a right must be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. … Justice was decided a few days after the events at issue here and, therefore, does not clearly establish the law in this case for qualified immunity purposes.

    Vacated by Jenkins v. Talladega City Board Of Education, 115 F.3d 821 (1997)Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Walker v. Davis

    643 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jul 23, 2009

    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 a reasonable person … For purposes of qualified immunity, the Court must also determine whether this right to be free from unreasonable seizures was clearly established at the time of pursuit.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Martinez v. Mathis

    970 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 1997

    “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.” … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Lodico v. United States

    571 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1982

    In Harlow , the Court held that presidential aides are entitled only to a qualified immunity. It then expanded somewhat the scope of the qualified immunity. … Accordingly, these individual defendants are now immune from liability unless their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Nurre v. Whitehead

    520 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2007

    Whitehead to qualified immunity as an individual defendant, for the record, the Court also grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity for the separate reason that it was not clearly established that … Similarly, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim because the Court has been unable to find authority clearly establishing that defendant was acting with

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Hall v. United States

    704 F.2d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1983

    Most recently the Supreme Court refined the limits of qualified, good faith immunity, placing “[r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Under this approach summary judgment should issue on the grounds of qualified, good faith immunity if the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time the challenged

    Cited 110 timesPublished
  • Brown v. United States

    851 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

    Since Granata’s remedy of dismissal for properly established qualified immunity remains open, mandamus is not available. I. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

    Disagreed with in part by Hallock v. Bonner, 387 F.3d 147 (2004)Cited 34 timesPublished
  • Espanola Way Corp. v. Murray Meyerson

    690 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1982

    Further, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to officials who, though otherwise covered, act with malice 1 or contrary to clearly established law. Procunier v. … Fifth, a conscious attempt to deprive property owners of property without due process of law clearly contravenes established law.

    Cited 98 timesPublished
  • George Mitchell v. State of Washington

    818 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 14, 2016

    Qualified Immunity — Clearly Established Despite the fact that we hold that the violation of a constitutional right occurred, Dr. … Bell is entitled to qualified immunity if it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate Mitchell’s constitutional rights. 7 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . At the time of Dr.

    Cited 210 timesPublished
  • Rhodes v. Smithers

    939 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 15, 1995

    Qualified Immunity. … Qualified Immunity.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Prentzel v. State, Department of Public Safety

    169 P.3d 573 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007

    Under federal law governing constitutional claims brought under § 1988, "a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at … To defeat the troopers' claim of qualified immunity, Prentzel must instead show that the troopers' warrantless arrest amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment under clearly established federal law governing that amendment's

    Cited 44 timesPublished
  • Cindy Laine Franklin v. Chris Curry

    738 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2013

    DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability unless the officials “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, to evaluate their entitlement to qualified immunity, we ask whether Franklin has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the

    Cited 195 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.