Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1831

10,000+ results

1.35s

  • Ford v. Donovan

    891 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2012

    Qualified Immunity “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 … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194 n.12 (1984) (“officials may lose their immunity by violating ‘clearly established statutory . . . rights.’”) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818).

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Ramon Cortesluna v. Manuel Leon

    979 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 27, 2020

    Principles of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects individual officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 actions unless they violate “clearly established” rights. Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012).

    Reversed on other grounds by Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1 (2021)Cited 24 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
  • NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORGAN. FOR WOMEN v. Cuomo

    14 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 1998

    Although violation of state rules or regulations may inform the court's analysis of a qualified immunity defense, the defense may only be defeated by the court's determination that the official violated "clearly established … The court must look to Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent in evaluating whether the law relevant to the constitutional issues raised here is "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes. See Elder v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Harrington v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa

    678 F.3d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

    In 2007, the district court found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding their failure to disclose exculpatory evidence because any failure did not violate a right that was clearly established when the … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff[s], however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • Rettele v. Los Angeles County

    186 F. App'x 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 21, 2006

    Having determined that Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, if true, may establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to whether the law was clearly established, such that a reasonable officer would have known … to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

    Cited 2 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
  • Randy James Barber, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Robert Barber, Deceased v. City of Salem, Ohio

    953 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 1992

    Because there was no clearly established right to a suicide prevention facility for pretrial detainees, the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … In reaching our decision regarding the police officers’ qualified immunity in Da-nese, we considered the law clearly established at the time of the decedent’s suicide.

    Cited 292 timesPublished
  • 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
  • Bradway v. Gonzales

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

    Piesco, 12 F.3d at 343 . 27 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 … As noted above, the Supreme Court had not clearly established inadvertence as a necessary element of a lawful plain view seizure.

    Cited 24 timesPublished
  • BARLOW EX REL. MONCEBAIZ v. Owens

    400 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 22, 2005

    Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not shown a violation of a constitutional right and because Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly-established … Conclusions Because Defendants’ actions in investigating the neighbor’s report, detaining Moncebaiz, and then arresting him were not unreasonable in light of clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Liebe v. Norton

    157 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 1998

    "Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known." Yowell v. … To withstand the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation; and, given the facts

    Cited 111 timesPublished
  • Heggs v. Grant

    73 F.3d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 1996

    On the appeal of a nonfinal order denying qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to decide whether the conduct complained of violated "clearly established statutory or … No clearly established law required him to take further measures to protect her.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Alexander v. University of North Florida

    39 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

    PER CURIAM: Principles of qualified immunity control this case. … But, nothing in Cornelius comes close to the “clearly established” standard required to overcome the qualified immunity defense in this case.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Haidon v. Bloomfield

    District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2024

    “Qualified immunity protects officials from damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or if it was objectively … “Qualified immunity protects officials from damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” or, when a clearly established

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Gustafson v. Thomas

    75 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 2014

    City of Chic., 865 F.2d 827 , 846 (7th Cir. 1989) (examining only cases decided before the events at issue in analyzing how clearly established the law was for qualified immunity). … Whatever the implications of potential violations of Illinois law, these alleged violations have no bearing on whether the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. .

    Cited 0 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
  • Hill ex rel. Estate of Hill v. Adkins

    59 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Nov 18, 2014

    Qualified immunity shields government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hill and, if a violation occurred, whether he transgressed a “clearly established right.” See Heflin v. Stewart County, Tenn., 958 F.2d 709, 717 (6th Cir.1992).

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Garcia v. Orta

    47 F.4th 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2022

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials acting in their individual capacity from lawsuits and liability for damages under Section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established … To overcome an asserted qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show “sufficient facts to ‘make out a violation of a constitutional right’” and “‘the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of

    Cited 16 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

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.