Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

10,000+ results

1.26s

  • Miles v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500

    347 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 16, 2018

    Castillo is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Last, Ms. Castillo contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Ralph Walsh, Jr. v. Lisa Hodge

    975 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

    Because Walsh’s deprivations of due process were not clearly established constitutional rights, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and RENDER judgment in favor of Defendants. … immunity analysis: was Walsh’s constitutional right clearly established?

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • Williamson v. Cox

    952 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2013

    was clearly established at the time an action occurred. . . .’”). … The qualified immunity analysis “‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’” Youngbey v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Ginter v. Stallcup

    641 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 11, 1986

    Knox’s claims of qualified immunity. Ms. Ginter has not brought the Court’s attention to any clearly established law which movants’ conduct on June 3, 1983, violated. The claims against Mr. Blasingame and Mr. … Where the plaintiff can point to no clearly established law that the federal agents violated, they will be entitled to qualified immunity, as discussed above, regardless of their subjective state of mind.

    Modified on other grounds by Ginter v. Stallcup, 869 F.2d 384 (1989)Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Barbosa v. Conlon

    962 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2013

    Qualifíed Immunity — In General “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Afifi v. Holder

    101 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2015

    Qualified Immunity Shields the Individual Defendants from the Plaintiff’s Bivens Claims “Qualified immunity is ‘a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly … Howards, the Supreme Court declined to accept the proposition that a Circuit’s own authority can be the dispositive source of clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. See 132 S.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Long v. Norris

    929 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 1991

    established" for purposes of qualified immunity. … established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Haley v. City of Boston

    677 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 timesPublished
  • CHS Industries, LLC v. United States Customs & Border Protection

    653 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2009

    . —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave a succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: 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 would have known.”

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Rigler v. Lampert

    248 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 31, 2017

    Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law, without resolving

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Menon v. Frinton

    170 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

    Summary judgment dismissing a claim based upon a defense of qualified immunity may be granted if the court finds that the “asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed … The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officials to freedom from suits for acts performed in their official capacity if “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Ruffins v. Department of Correctional Services

    907 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 2, 2012

    Legal Standard Government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would have been objectively … Cuomo, 465 Fed.Appx. 42, 45 (2d Cir.2012) (defendants entitled to qualified immunity because “neither clearly established principles of double jeopardy nor due process prohibited defendants from administratively imposing

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • 24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v. Cannella

    139 A.D.3d 717 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2016

    The complaint does not allege that Fitzsimmons undertook any actions that violated “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware” (Zalaski v City of Hartford, 723 F3d 382, 388 … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Fitzsimmons, based on the principle of qualified immunity (see Vincent v Yelich, 718 F3d 157, 170 [2d Cir 2013]; Scott v Fischer

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Schaffrath on Behalf of RJJ v. Thomas

    993 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 28, 1998

    clearly established at the time of the conduct *847 at issue. … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found' the law to be

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Vernon v. Deramus

    District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 9, 2024

    Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a single incident cannot establish a pattern or practice and Plaintiffs have not shown a violation of a clearly established right. … Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Robert B. Brown v. Texas a & M University

    804 F.2d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 1986

    Perez In order to overcome Reynolds’ claim of qualified immunity, Brown must show that Reynolds’ conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Forsyth, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (“Unless 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 123 timesPublished
  • William J. Benson v. Robert H. Allphin

    786 F.2d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1986

    Qualified Immunity As government officials performing discretionary functions, Allphin and Rummel are shielded from liability for civil damages in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory … Although the Supreme Court has articulated the rule for qualified immunity, it has not fully explained what it means by the phrase “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

    Superseded by statute, as recognized in Laborers' Pension Fund v. A & C Environmental, IncorporatedCited 183 timesPublished
  • Norwood v. Woodford

    583 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2008

    The defense 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 … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” a finding of qualified immunity is appropriate, as “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Wright v. Department of Children and Family Services

    District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 2024

    “[B]ecause immunity may depend on particular facts that a plaintiff need not plead to state a claim,” a motion to dismiss does not generally provide the best procedural setting to determine qualified immunity. … See id. at 590 (qualified immunity applies if the “well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Hall v. Jones

    453 S.W.3d 674 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 2015

    The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judge named by appellant in the complaint had jurisdiction to act on the in rem complaint filed in Miller … When the actions of a prosecuting attorney involve his role as an administrator or investigator, he is entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.

    Cited 5 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.