Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1934

10,000+ results

1.30s

  • Francis Brauner v. Shirley Coody

    793 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

    Denying qualified immunity implies both “that a certain course of conduct would . . . be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law” and “that a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant … To determine that an official is not entitled to qualified immunity, the court must find that every reasonable officer would have understood that the alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

    Cited 85 timesPublished
  • Stevenson v. Owens State Community College

    562 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 2008

    The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As such, this Court finds that the Individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. IV.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Ty Shanaberg v. Licking Cty., Ohio

    936 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2019

    To overcome that immunity and make it to a jury, Shanaberg must show that (1) Stetson violated a constitutional right and (2) the violated right was clearly established when Stetson acted. Pearson v. … But I would grant qualified immunity for a different reason: it is not clearly established, in the context of this case, what level of verbal noncompliance, or “verbal belligerence,” justifies a taser’s use.

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • Richard Powell v. Randy Johnson

    405 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 2, 2005

    On appeal, the Appellants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the decision to demote Powell was reasonable in light of clearly established law. … If the answer is no, qualified immunity is proper and summary judgment should be granted. If the answer is yes, we next decide “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Armendariz v. Penman

    31 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

    Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a federal claim, Siegert, 500 U.S. at 233 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793-94 ; or if in light of clearly established principles … Clearly Established The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Baker v.

    Vacated in part, on other grounds by Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311 (1996)Cited 28 timesPublished
  • Rivas v. Martin

    781 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 2011

    Second, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any of Rivas’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. (Id. at 6.) … Thus, because the allegations state that defendants violated Rivas’ clearly established constitutional rights, defendants cannot be granted qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Usavage v. Port Authority

    932 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2013

    Qualified Immunity and Excessive Force “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 … Accordingly, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established only if (1) the officers’ actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that their actions did

    Cited 58 timesPublished
  • Sprouse v. Ryan

    346 F. Supp. 3d 1347 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 7, 2017

    Qualified immunity therefore turns on the second prong-whether the right at issue was clearly established such that Defendants would have known that their conduct was unlawful. See Saucier v. … Unpublished district court decisions "may inform our qualified immunity analysis," but "absent any published opinions on point or overwhelming obviousness of illegality[,]" a right is rarely clearly established.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Jeffrey Swiecicki v. Jose Delgado

    463 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2006

    The law of qualified immunity We will “review the denial of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity de novo because application of this doctrine is a question of law.” McCloud v. … Swiecicki’s First Amendment right to free speech was thus clearly established at the time of Delgado’s actions in question. We therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity awarded to Delgado on this issue. b.

    Abrogated on other grounds by Wallace v. Kato, 127 S. Ct. 1091 (2007)Cited 85 timesPublished
  • Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

    956 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 28, 2013

    Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court, faced with the clearly established prong of Wilson’s qualified immunity, recognized that “courts considering qualified immunity for strip searches” have found it “impossible to establish clearly the contours

    Cited 36 timesPublished
  • Peterson v. North Dakota ex rel. North Dakota University System

    240 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 3, 2003

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In other words, the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.

    Cited 4 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
  • Anastasio v. Planning Board of West Orange

    197 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 1984

    Since the trial court at the motion to dismiss the complaint had held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity was available, the next issue to confront the court is the one dealing with qualified immunity. … It then became the task of the Supreme Court to set guidelines for defining the scope of qualified immunity. The guidelines for the scope of qualified immunity were established in the case of Wood v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Dube v. State University of New York

    900 F.2d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1990

    Dube’s file and the standards applicable at Stony Brook and in light of clearly established law” ... is not an answer to Dr. Dube’s claim. Summary judgment is therefore denied based on the qualified immunity defense. … Analysis It is well established that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

    Cited 65 timesPublished
  • Steven M. Harrison v. John Dahm, Etc.

    911 F.2d 37 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 1990

    The standard for qualified immunity is well established. In Harlow v. … to qualified immunity.

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • Harold Werkheiser v. Pocono Township

    780 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 2015

    Because we conclude that the contours of the First Amendment right at issue were not clearly established, we hold that Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim.1 … Appellants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding Werkheiser’s rights was not clearly established. The District Court rejected this argument as well.

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • District of Columbia v. Minor

    740 A.2d 523 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1999

    In suits for unlawful arrest brought under § 1983, qualified immunity shields police officers from liability if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and … The instruction given to the jury on qualified immunity stated: “Officer Kelsey is shielded from liability for civil damages as long as he did not intentionally, or with reckless disregard, violate clearly established statutory

    Cited 24 timesPublished
  • William G. Moore, Jr. v. Joseph B. Valder

    65 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 23, 1996

    Furthermore, it has not been clearly established that malicious prosecution violates any constitutional or statutory right. 11 Accord *196 ingly, the postal inspectors’ qualified immunity defeats Moore’s malicious prosecution … Qualified immunity protects a government official who performs discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if he can show that his actions did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

    Abrogated on other grounds by Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017)Cited 119 timesPublished
  • David Powell v. Jerry L. Gallentine Robert C. Martin Maria Elvira Rodriguez Richard C. Kauzlaric, Western New Mexico University Board of Regents

    992 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1993

    We have previously set out the procedure for analyzing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the defendant must raise the defense of qualified immunity. … official violated the clearly established law.

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Smith v. Allbaugh

    987 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 2021

    Constitutional Violation A public official or employee is entitled to qualified immunity unless “clearly established” federal rights of which a reasonable person would have known are shown to have been violated. … Once a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.” Morris v.

    Cited 17 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.