Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1862

10,000+ results

1.31s

  • William Manery v. Jason Lee

    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

    An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hogan ex rel. J.H. v. County of Lewis

    929 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

    The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their capacity from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … The party invoking qualified immunity bears the burden of offering proof that it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate a clearly established right and that she is entitled to qualified

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Bennett v. Murphy

    274 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

    that claims of qualified immunity are to be evaluated using a two-step process. … immunity claim move to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

    Cited 64 timesPublished
  • Robert Shawn Treff v. Kerry Galetka, Individually and as the Mailroom Supervisor at the Utah State Prison

    74 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 1996

    Galetka was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that prisoners had a First Amendment right to have their outgoing mail processed for delivery by the United States Postal Service, absent … Galetka’s qualified immunity defense, we first conclude that a prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the courts is clearly established. Nordgren v.

    Cited 173 timesPublished
  • Caldarola v. Calabrese

    298 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 31, 2002

    Qualified Immunity A. 11 "Qualified immunity is `an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.'" Saucier v. … If the law was clearly established that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate.

    Cited 336 timesPublished
  • Richard Ceballos v. Gil Garcetti Frank Sundstedt Carol Najera County of Los Angeles

    361 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

    The Constitutional Right Was Clearly Established Even if Ceballos’s speech is constitutionally protected, the defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established … law is clearly established, and qualified immunity is therefore unavailable.

    Reversed on other grounds by Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)Cited 61 timesPublished
  • Barbosa v. Conlon

    962 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2013

    Qualifíed Immunity — In General “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Hutton v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk

    45 Mass. App. Ct. 304 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 13, 1998

    “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hutton’s rights were not clearly established, and the defendants, therefore, enjoy immunity from suit under the § 1983 claim and under the common law false imprisonment claim. 6 The defendants’ motions for summary judgment

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Bailey v. Kenney

    791 F. Supp. 1511 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 16, 1992

    Standards for Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is available to state actors who perform discretionary functions if their actions do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … violated a clearly established federal right of plaintiff.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Rehberg v. Paulk

    611 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2010

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory … immunity because Rehberg’s right to be free from a retaliatory investigation is not clearly established.

    Cited 170 timesPublished
  • Xiaoxing Xi v. Andrew Haugen

    68 F.4th 824 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2023

    Its determination that Xi failed to establish a “clearly established” violation for purposes of its qualified immunity analysis was therefore dispositive. Id. Xi now brings this timely appeal. II. … immunity because any constitutional rights he violated were not “clearly established.”

    Cited 76 timesPublished
  • D'Aoust v. Diamond

    197 Md. App. 195 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2010

    Qualified Immunity Having established that appellees are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity, we now come to the heart of the matter on appeal: whether the facts alleged and their permissible inferences would … “qualified” immunity.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Eric K. Brooks v. D Miller

    78 F.4th 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2023

    He argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of Brooks’s con- stitutional rights, and even assuming he did, any rights were not clearly established. … In sum, the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity in- quiry asks whether the law when the officer engaged in the USCA11 Case: 21-10590 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2023 Page: 22 of

    Cited 50 timesPublished
  • Thompson v. City of Indianapolis

    208 F. Supp. 3d 968 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2016

    Clearly Established Right The Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights must also be clearly established. … and Zotz were so clearly excessive to defeat the claim for qualified immunity.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Schiffbauer v. Schmidt

    95 F. Supp. 3d 846 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2015

    Furthermore, because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit “rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial,” Mitchell … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before *853 the commencement of discovery.”

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Garner v. Steger

    69 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 2014

    Third, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. … The court next turns to the second prong of qualified immunity — whether the employment action here violated Garner’s clearly established rights.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Louis Bianchi v. Thomas McQueen

    818 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

    Qualified Immunity Qualified-immunity doctrine holds that “government of- ficials are not subject to damages liability for the perfor- mance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly … was clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.”

    Cited 173 timesPublished
  • Sutton v. Village of Valley Stream, NY

    96 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2000

    A government official claiming qualified immunity bears the burden of proving either: (1) that the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) that it was … established” so as to defeat a claim for qualified immunity.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Cesar v. Achim

    542 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 27, 2008

    The burden of proving the existence of a clearly established constitutional right is on the plaintiff, and it is a heavy one because qualified immunity is designed to shield from civil liability “ ‘all but the plainly incompetent … Moreover, I do not believe qualified immunity is appropriate at this time, as Achim’s alleged conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, could amount to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Jeffries v. Ayoub

    District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

    Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … If, as a matter of law, the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, then Ayoub is qualifiedly immune.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown

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.