Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1967

10,000+ results

1.19s

  • Brown v. Grove

    647 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 16, 2009

    Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Is Denied Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established federal … To be protected under qualified immunity, a government employee must show that the right the plaintiff complains of was not clearly established at the time the defendants acted or, assuming that it was clearly established

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Crawford v. Columbus State Community College

    196 F. Supp. 3d 766 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 2016

    Qualified Immunity The defendants’ qualified-immunity argument similarly lacks merit. 3 Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established law supporting Crawford’s attempt to assert an age discrimination claim … Accordingly, the Court will only address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether that right was "clearly established.”

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • John Entler v. Christine Gregoire

    872 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2017

    The magistrate judge also concluded that, regardless, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity “because Entler’s rights were not clearly established at the time he was sanctioned.” … There remains the issue of qualified immunity. Appellees would not be entitled to prevail if the constitutional right violated “was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” City of San Francisco v.

    Cited 159 timesPublished
  • Linda Denno, as Parent, Legal Guardian and Next Friend for Wayne Denno v. School Board of Volusia County, Florida Dennis Roberts, an Individual

    218 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 2000

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS Qualified immunity shields government officials from both suit and liability if their conduct violates no clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have … As indicated in our elaboration above of the qualified immunity standard, pre-exist-ing law must clearly establish the alleged constitutional right.

    Cited 115 timesPublished
  • Rockwood v. Shoen

    145 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2015

    Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment on this claim on the ground of qualified immunity. … Courts generally use a two-step analysis to address the potential applicability of qualified immunity.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • S.P. v. City of Takoma Park

    134 F.3d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 15, 1998

    Thus, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, Peller must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” in more than just a general sense. … to qualified immunity.

    Cited 79 timesPublished
  • Denise MARKHAM, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Francis E. WHITE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

    172 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 31, 1999

    Qualified Immunity A defendant raising a claim of qualified immunity is not directly attacking the merits of a plaintiffs claim. … Furthermore, this principle was sufficiently well established that it required the denial of the defendants’ qualified immunity motion in the Nabozny case. Id.

    Cited 51 timesPublished
  • Dallas Independent School District v. Finlan

    27 S.W.3d 220 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Oct 3, 2000

    Qualified Immunity Analysis Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for civil damages, if “their conduct does not violate … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

    Cited 109 timesPublished
  • Moran v. Clarke

    359 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

    Id. 9 Appellants assert that the law was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the fact remains that qualified immunity is reserved for state officials whose conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Curley v. Klem

    298 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

    If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constItutional right, then it must deny him the ~rotection afforded by qualified immunity. See id. at 2156-57. … immunity issues early in the litigation is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right

    Cited 310 timesPublished
  • Opinion Number

    Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Sep 13, 2002

    The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Gordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas

    168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 10, 2016

    The individual defendants 7 contend they are enti- *1156 tied to qualified immunity from Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims 8 because the conduct alleged fails to state a violation of a clearly established federal right of … But the former UALR employees — Norwood and Peterson— are also entitled to qualified immunity if Gordon fails to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Keating v. University of South Dakota

    980 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 30, 2013

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The second step in the qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether Keating’s free speech right was clearly established at the time his contract was not renewed. See Sexton, 210 F.3d at 910.

    Reversed on other grounds by Christopher Keating v. University of South Dakota, 569 F. App'x 469 (2014)Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Marshall Spiegel v. Joseph Cortese, Detective, and James Hennelly and Holly Zielke

    196 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

    Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials who are performing discretionary functions in the course of duty to the extent that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time in question.”

    Cited 149 timesPublished
  • Morris Rodgers v. John Jabe, Jerry Hofbauer, and Robin Pratt, in Their Individual and Official Capacities

    43 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 12, 1995

    were entitled to qualified immunity because the amount of exercise to which prisoners had a right was not clearly established at the time of the defendants’ actions. … Most importantly, the magistrate judge denied qualified immunity because the relevant law was “clearly established” by August 29, 1991. Hofbauer and Pratt objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

    Cited 93 timesPublished
  • Emmanuel v. King County

    District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2020

    Homchick’s failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest or an abuse of process also entitles Defendants to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … point to facts that support a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) 22 (discussing Saucier v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Baldwin v. Estherville, Iowa

    218 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 18, 2016

    In the alternative, the defendants argue that Officers Reineke and Hellickson are entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not *997 clearly established that, when the City incorporated Iowa Code Ch. 321 into the City … . “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Hebert v. State

    165 Vt. 557 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 18, 1996

    Under federal law, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In Hall , for example, the court held that “[i]t was clearly established in 1986 that police officers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who is in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Williams v. Brown

    District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022

    Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Harold Wayne Enlow v. Tishomingo County, Mississippi, Jim Wall, in His Individual Capacity

    962 F.2d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

    Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions in light of clearly established law. Id. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 . … s first inquiry — he has also set forth a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. We now address the second inquiry under Siegert— Wall’s entitlement to his qualified immunity defense.

    Cited 81 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.