Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1928

10,000+ results

3.27s

  • Gunasekera v. Irwin

    551 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2009

    established to defeat the defendants’ qualified immunity defense must wait until a factual record has been developed. … established for purposes of qualified immunity before a factual record had been developed.

    Cited 1,300 timesPublished
  • Dent v. Montgomery County Police Department

    745 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2010

    Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Harvey Levin v. Lisa Madigan

    692 F.3d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2012

    Accord- ingly, Judge Coar believed that the constitutional right was not clearly established and qualified immunity was appropriate. Id. … Because Levin’s constitutional right was clearly established, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

    Cited 62 timesPublished
  • John Lanigan, Sr. v. Village of East Hazel Crest, Illinois, Officer Robert Wasek, Chief Ray Robertson

    110 F.3d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 1997

    Finally, the district court found that all three individual defendants were shielded from liability by qualified immunity because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Cournia set forth the test for qualified immunity as follows: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred.

    Abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)Cited 260 timesPublished
  • Roniger v. McCall

    22 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 15, 1998

    of qualified immunity, public officials are shielded from liabili *162 ty for civil damages if they establish that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In determining the availability of a qualified immunity defense, the rights alleged to have been violated must be identified, and a determination as to whether they were “clearly established” must be - made!

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Mosher Ex Rel. Estate of Mosher v. Nelson

    589 F.3d 488 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2009

    was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation." … Therefore, Dennehy is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Elbrader v. Blevins

    757 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 17, 1991

    Examining the record in a light favorable to plaintiff, we cannot hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. There is a clearly established right against retaliation for constitutionally protected speech. … The unlawful intent inherent in such a retaliatory action places it beyond the scope of a police officer’s qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established. See Coen v.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Miller v. Clinton County

    544 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2008

    The court concluded that Judge Saxton had not established that he was entitled to qualified immunity because the record did not support his claim that he had not violated Miller’s clearly established constitutional rights … Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

    Cited 106 timesPublished
  • Washington v. Starke

    855 F.2d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 1988

    or not qualified immunity exists. … clearly established law.’

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Hemphill v. Hale

    677 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 10, 2012

    The court later denied the motion, finding that Hale was not entitled to qualified immunity. … We review de novo the court’s determination that Hale is not entitled to qualified immunity, and we must decide whether the facts, construed in the light most favorable to Hemphill, established a constitutional violation,

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Madonna Sterling, of the Estate of Marcus Anthony Wayman v. Borough of Minersville F. Scott Wilinsky, Police Officer Thomas Hoban, Police Officer Joseph Wilinsky, Police Chief, Individually and as Police Officers for the Borough of Minersville Officer F. Scott Wilinsky and Officer Thomas Hoban

    232 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 2000

    The court further ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct violated Wayman's clearly established right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. 7 Officers Hoban and Wilinsky … II. 8 We have previously set forth the analytical framework for deciding qualified immunity claims. First, we must determine if the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right.

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • Parsons v. Pond

    126 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 24, 2000

    In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, [a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was … In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, [a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Edwards v. Gilbert

    867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

    Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions_” Mitchell … established” for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert’s death.

    Modified on other grounds by Edwards v. Okaloosa County, 23 F.3d 358 (1994)Cited 130 timesPublished
  • Bradway v. Gonzales

    26 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

    The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … As noted above, the Supreme Court had not clearly established inadvertence as a necessary element of a lawful plain view seizure.

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • Dennis R. Cookish v. Commissioner Ronald Powell

    945 F.2d 441 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

    “Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials exercising discretionary powers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A “clearly established” right in the qualified immunity context has a *443 particularized cast. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

    Cited 81 timesPublished
  • LaChance v. Commissioner of Correction

    463 Mass. 767 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 27, 2012

    judgment, on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity.

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Castillo v. City of Weslaco

    388 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2004

    Finding that the Officers sufficiently alleged a violation of clearly established federal law, the district court denied the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and scheduled the case for … II Qualified immunity is appropriate if “the defendant’s actions were ‘objectively reasonable’ with reference to ‘clearly established law’ at the time of the conduct in question.” Petta v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Matthew Locke v. County of Hubbard

    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 17, 2025

    While I disagree with the court’s constitutional analysis, I need not resolve that inquiry as the case can be easily resolved under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson v. … This does not constitute a violation of a clearly established right; therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Cudd v. Aldrich

    982 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 7, 1997

    The next inquiry for qualified immunity purposes is whether Cudd’s First Amendment right to be free from political patronage dismissal was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Second, and more importantly, the inquiry into qualified immunity is an objective one: the Court must determine what a reasonable public official would have understood as clearly established law.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Perez v. County of Westchester

    83 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 2000

    Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages stemming from their performance of discretionary official functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Indeed, “[u]nless the 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.” Mitchell v.

    Cited 22 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.