Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
3.68s
Roman Catholic Foundation v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
590 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 16, 2008
The reason plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary relief is because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 The reason that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is because their view that the Establishment Clause … Such liability, in turn, depends on whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 .
Cited 3 timesPublished325 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 24, 2004
Even if the court were to proceed to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court would determine that it is not clearly established that Plaintiffs were- engaging in protected speech. … See Camfield, 248 F.3d at 1228 (citing Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 530 (holding that qualified immunity was proper when the plaintiff failed to cite any case law showing that the law was clearly established)).
Cited 12 timesPublished183 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 1999
immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law. … First Amendment Retaliation The qualified immunity inquiry entails a determination of whether the law allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue.
Cited 181 timesPublished267 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 9, 2003
Deputy Prince is entitled to qualified immunity from Count III of Rieb-same’s complaint. Riebsame has not shown that Deputy Prince violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory law. … Riebsame has not proved that Sheriff Williams violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. No genuine issue of material fact remains as to Sheriff Williams’ qualified immunity. D.
Cited 6 timesPublishedIn Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation
874 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1995
of a qualified immunity defense. … The task of determining what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity has been accurately labeled a “labyrinth”. See Long v. Norris, 929 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir.1991).
Cited 40 timesPublishedThomas Moran v. Anne Marie Clark
359 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 26, 2004
Appellants assert that the law was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001), the fact remains that qualified immunity is reserved for state -4- officials whose conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established
Cited 5 timesPublished524 F.3d 1103 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 2008
The next qualified immunity question presented is whether the equal protection right implicated here was clearly established at the time Brooks refused to enforce Price-Cornelison’s permanent protective order. … Whether this Fourth Amendment right was clearly established.
Cited 73 timesPublished796 F. Supp. 135 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1992
In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v. … protection program without notice to the father as father’s right to a hearing was clearly established when the child was placed in the program).
Cited 15 timesPublishedThad Delaughter v. Ronald Woodall
909 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2018
Clearly established law Having established that summary judgment on the first prong was incorrect, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, if the fact issues under prong one were resolved in Delaughter’s favor, Hatten’s conduct would violate clearly established law and he would not be entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 122 timesPublished677 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 2009
Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.
Cited 5 timesPublished742 F. Supp. 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 1990
Qualified Immunity No such trial will be necessary here, though, because defendants must prevail on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. As Harlow v. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.
Cited 1 timesPublishedLong v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority
1 Am. Tribal Law 385 · Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court · Dec 5, 1997
The Discriminatory Employment Practices Ordinance further establishes two types of matters which may be brought to The Gaming Disputes Court, Claims and Appeals, and those qualified to file either one are strictly and narrowly … Section 502 of Mohegan Tribal Ordinance 95-4, which established the Gaming Disputes Court, specifies that nothing in the ordinance establishing the Gaming Disputes Court “shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity
Cited 30 timesPublished637 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 27, 1986
Qualified immunity is judged objectively by reference to clearly established law. Id. … Thus, if this court concludes that the individual defendants acting within their individual capacities violated such clearly established *616 constitutional or statutory rights, then qualified immunity does not bar this action
Cited 12 timesPublished234 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 2000
’s assertion of qualified immunity. … Thus, we find that Shipp articulates a clearly established right under the minimum requirements of Rule 12(b)(6).3 Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must show that the defendant
Overruled on other grounds by Peter Clayton McClendon v. City of Columbia, City of Columbia James R. Carney, 305 F.3d 314 (2002)Cited 128 timesPublished497 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2007
(2) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.” … 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 would have known
Cited 20 timesPublishedAuburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Peters
953 F. Supp. 1518 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 12, 1996
as the plaintiff contends, because the Court finds that Smith is clearly immune from the plaintiffs RICO claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5 Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary … The Hansen Court emphasized that the qualified immunity analysis is fact-specific: “When considering whether the law applicable to certain facts is clearly established, the facts of cases relied upon as precedent are important
Cited 1 timesPublished380 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2019
Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability for acts done in their official capacity, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights to which a reasonable … The law has clearly established this conduct as violative and therefore precludes the officers from qualified immunity.
Cited 4 timesPublished580 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009
AUKidd’s Right Was “Clearly Established.” … Ohio, was certainly clearly established.
Reversed on other grounds by Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (2011)Cited 197 timesPublished109 Idaho 656 · Idaho Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1985
If the law was clearly established, the *666 immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … The United States Supreme Court in Harlow has established a threshold test that must be met by the plaintiff, if the defendant has asserted the affirmative defense of a qualified immunity, before a defendant’s motion for
Cited 18 timesPublished86 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 20, 2023
Qualified Immunity We next turn to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 279 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Summary 19 judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate because it was clearly established law at the time of the alleged
Cited 53 timesPublished
Ask Donna