Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1897

10,000+ results

1.64s

  • Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

    3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2014

    Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Dms Imaging, Inc. v. United States

    123 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2015

    “If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Locke v. … The frustration of purpose doctrine is clearly inapplicable here.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

    44 Conn. App. 359 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 25, 1997

    The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that they failed to establish the imminent harm aspect of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the defendants’ qualified governmental immunity. … With this standard of review in mind, we turn now to the law concerning municipal immunity. “ ‘The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

    Reversed on other grounds by Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101 (1998)Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Quartararo v. Catterson

    917 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 1996

    With respect to the three categories of defendants who now seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff alleges the existence of two distinct types of clearly established rights: (1) a clearly-established … a clearly established federal right.

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Duhani v. Town of Grafton

    52 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2014

    The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to decide ‘(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was “clearly established … Since Duhani has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional right, Mclnerney is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Pritchard v. Arvon

    186 W. Va. 445 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

    Such employee immunity is consistent generally with the political subdivision’s qualified immunity, and the employee immunity is reasonable in scope because the Act imposes employee liability for tort damages proximately … Clearly, the Act is reasonable in furthering the purpose for which it was enacted.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Bartrug v. Rubin

    986 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 25, 1997

    However, there are no facts alleged which establish that these acts are violative of a “clearly established constitutional right.” … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials fi-om civil liability as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Powell v. Barrett

    376 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 5, 2005

    established” test for qualified immunity) to sustain their liability under an entrustment-based theory. … of qualified immunity.

    Reversed on other grounds by Powell v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1288 (2007)Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police

    26 F. Supp. 3d 824 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2014

    Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. … Qualified immunity for the deficient plan claim.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Marquez v. Gutierrez

    322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

    The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?” … Accordingly, Gutierrez is entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Hike v. Hall

    427 N.W.2d 158 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 20, 1988

    Conversely, in situations in which assistant state’s attorneys’ activities are not quasi-judicial and consequently are clothed only with qualified immunity, that qualified immunity applies as well to a claim that the state … of liberty ... the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Robert D. Mastroianni v. Michael J. Bowers, Patrick D. Deering, Joe B. Jackson, Jr., Weyland Yeomans

    74 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1996

    immunity as a defense, and (2) the issue on appeal is whether the undisputed facts show a violation of clearly established law. … to determining whether the law supposedly violated was clearly established.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Oliverio Martinez v. City of Oxnard Oxnard Police Department Art Lopez, Chief Maria Pena Andrew Salinas Ron Zavala, and Ben Chavez

    270 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 2001

    Qualified immunity shields them “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.” … We must now determine whether the rights that Martinez alleges Chavez violated were clearly established by federal law.

    Reversed by Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Rome v. Romero

    225 F.R.D. 640 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 22, 2004

    Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Even where a qualified immunity defense is asserted, some limited discovery is still permitted.

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • Latoya Aaron v. Darren King

    Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 2026

    Qualified immunity shields officials from lawsuits for money damages unless they violated clearly established constitutional rights. Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012). … But Aaron’s cases, yet again, turn on materially different facts and thus fail to provide the kind of clearly established law needed to pierce qualified immunity. In Champion v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Griswold v. Alabama Department of Industrial Relations

    903 F. Supp. 1492 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 10, 1995

    Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In light of this finding, the supervisors’ entitlement to qualified immunity depends upon whether Griswold’s allegations implicate a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful activities.

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • Mglej v. Garfield County

    974 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 9, 2020

    Once Gardner asserted qualified immunity, it was Mglej’s burden to show “that (1) the officers’ alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, … The district court, therefore, did not err in denying Deputy Gardner qualified immunity on this excessive force claim.13 13 The clearly established Fourth Amendment violation that Mglej has alleged is that Deputy Gardner

    Cited 51 timesPublished
  • Dorsett-Felicelli, Inc. v. County of Clinton

    371 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 1, 2005

    Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … County Defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was -objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law.

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • State v. Sieminski

    92 N.E.3d 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2017

    “A statute must clearly proclaim its own retroactivity to overcome the presumption of prospective application. Retroactivity is not to be inferred.” State v. … Sieminski’s motion to dismiss because she is not a qualified individual pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii), and therefore not eligible for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b).

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • French v. Merrill

    15 F.4th 116 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 1, 2021

    Hence, the officers - 34 - violated clearly established law and are not entitled to qualified immunity. C. … qualified immunity

    Cited 57 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.