Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1866

10,000+ results

0.91s

  • Hyland v. Wonder

    117 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 1997

    The defendants asserted qualified immunity. … The district court granted the individual defendants summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, finding that it was not “clearly established” in 1989 that a government volunteer possessed the same First Amendment

    Cited 73 timesPublished
  • Shelton v. Angelone

    148 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 21, 2001

    “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-819 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v.

    Cited 28 timesPublished
  • Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police

    71 F.3d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 22, 1995

    The officers contend that the district court erred because they are shielded from Orsatti's claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 7 Because we find that the undisputed material facts of record establish that it was … Finding that the right at issue was clearly established, however, does not end the court's inquiry. Nor does the court's decision turn merely on whether the official violated that clearly established right.

    Cited 594 timesPublished
  • Nagy v. Mone, et al.

    2007 DNH 143 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 28, 2007

    If plaintiff does allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, I examine the next two steps in the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional … Thus, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at step two. C. Step Three: Would a Reasonable Officer Have Understood That His Conduct Violated Clearly Established Constitutional Rights?

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hall v. Jones

    453 S.W.3d 674 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 2015

    The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judge named by appellant in the complaint had jurisdiction to act on the in rem complaint filed in Miller … When the actions of a prosecuting attorney involve his role as an administrator or investigator, he is entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Megan Winfrey v. Keith Pikett

    872 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

    He contends that the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity because the scent lineups did not violate Megan’s clearly established constitutional rights for two reasons. … violated clearly established law.”

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Summar ex rel. Summar v. Bennett

    157 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

    City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331 (6th Cir.1993), for example, this court generally explained that “[t]he right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right,” yet affirmed a district court’s denial of qualified … precedent to the rejection of qualified immunity.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Pearce v. Estate of Longo

    766 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

    to qualified immunity. … Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

    Reversed in part, on other grounds by Pearce v. LaBella, 473 F. App'x 16 (2012)Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Supra Medical Corp. v. McGonigle

    955 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1997

    The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity under one of the exceptions in § 1605. … The UMDS Defendants have provided no evidence of UMDS’ ownership, relying instead on a claim that the Schools’ qualify for immunity as an “organ of a foreign state.”

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Tiscareno v. Anderson

    639 F.3d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2011

    Because such an obligation was not clearly established, we conclude that Anderson was entitled to qualified immunity. … Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably in light of clearly established law.

    Vacated in part, on other grounds by Tiscareno v. Anderson, 421 F. App'x 842 (2011)Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Yost v. Wilhoit

    District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 8, 2021

    Defendant Wilhoit also asserts qualified immunity as a defense. … It is well established that a plaintiff has the burden to defeat qualified immunity once it has been raised.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Scott R. Rushing v. Estate of Ernest R. Mincey

    599 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2010

    “[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials 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 … 3 were clearly established at the time the officer acted.”

    Cited 51 timesPublished
  • Sand v. Steele

    218 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 15, 2002

    As has been ruled consistently in the past: The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established … “The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Evenstad v. State

    178 Ariz. 578 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 5, 1993

    We agree with appellants that the qualified immunity provisions of A.R.S. section 12-820.02 do not apply to the duty of MVD to prescribe rules and regulations. … Clearly, MVD may be held liable for the grossly negligent issuance of drivers’ licenses. See § 12-820.02(5); Bird, 170 Ariz. at 23 , 821 P.2d at 290 (dicta) (qualified immunity applies to issuance of driver’s license).

    Cited 70 timesPublished
  • Ernesto Nunez v. Luiz Izquierdo-Mora, Etc.

    834 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 30, 1987

    not “clearly established.” … Thus, it was not clearly established that this position was protected from political discharge. The judgment of the district court in respect to the issue of qualified immunity is Reversed. 1 .

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • People v. Bylsma

    294 Mich. App. 219 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2011

    SECTION 4 IMMUNITY The MMMA provides a registration system for “qualifying patients” and “primary caregivers.” 3 See MCL 333.26426. … to immunity under § 4(b) of the MMMA.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Facey v. Dickhaut

    91 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2014

    a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Steven Gillman v. City of Troy, Mich.

    126 F.4th 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 2025

    Qualified Immunity Green-Hernandez begins by contesting the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on her qualified immunity defense. … “A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate ‘clearly established . . . constitutional

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Okwa v. Harper

    360 Md. 161 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2000

    ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … In determining whether Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from Appellants’ § 1983 claim we first look to the relevant “legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time” which governed Appellees actions during

    Cited 178 timesPublished
  • Savage v. State

    127 Wash. 2d 434 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1995

    I Qualified Personal Immunity In Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992), we held that parole officers have qualified immunity for allegedly negligent supervision of parolees who harm third parties. … agent enjoys qualified personal immunity.

    Cited 75 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.