Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1957

10,000+ results

1.45s

  • James Carver, Administrator of the Estate of David Allen Carver, Deceased v. City of Cincinnati

    474 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

    repeatedly without ever becoming clearly established. … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. III. CONCLUSION The Cincinnati police officers and EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 24 timesPublished
  • Cleavinger v. Saxner

    474 U.S. 193 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 10, 1985

    To be sure, the line between absolute immunity and qualified immunity often is not an easy one to perceive and structure. … Petitioners state that they have not challenged — although they do not concede— the ruling that they violated “clearly established constitutional rights” of respondents. See Brief for Petitioners 7, n. 8.

    Cited 1,056 timesPublished
  • Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners

    637 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 5, 2009

    Plaintiff further argues that “qualified immunity should be denied, because it is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally-protected interest … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I must determine whether Plaintiffs First Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Weaver v. Brenner

    40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

    Clearly Established Right 23 The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … the relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.

    Cited 34 timesPublished
  • Orraca Figueroa v. Torres Torres

    288 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 14, 2003

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants have moved for summary judgment, alleging that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Lopez Quinonez v. PUERTO RICO NAT. GUARD

    488 F. Supp. 2d 112 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 18, 2007

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, of which … We have used a three-prong analysis for evaluating qualified immunity claims.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Springer v. Seventh Judicial District Court

    District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 9, 2024

    “Qualified immunity ‘protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Qualified immunity is only an immunity from a suit for money damages, and does not provide immunity from a suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.”); Yates v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Holeman v. City of New London

    330 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2004

    “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Since a constitutional violation could be shown, the court must proceed to the qualified immunity inquiry and ask whether the right violated was clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Young v. Keohane

    809 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

    In some cases, the qualified immunity issue may also turn on “the complementary question whether defendant had a clearly established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v. … What is “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes, however, commands only some, “not precise factual correspondence between relevant precedents and the conduct at issue.” Ryan, 860 F.2d at 1208 .

    Cited 216 timesPublished
  • Rogers v. Pocono Mountain East High School

    District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

    The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

    41 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 29, 2014

    (“Robles has successfully established the violation of a clearly established right and therefore qualified immunity is not appropriate. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Mayronne v. Vaught

    94 La.App. 4 Cir. 2140 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1995

    Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their Rconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity does not act as an absolute bar, but rather as a threshold over which a plaintiff must pass to continue litigation.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Skinner v. Chapman

    680 F. Supp. 2d 470 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 28, 2010

    Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If a deprivation exists, qualified immunity is appropriate where:(l) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the defendant’s action was objectively reasonable

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Burgess v. Fischer

    890 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2012

    Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dickerson v. … Qualified immunity includes a two-step analysis: (1) considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Onnette v. Reed

    832 S.W.2d 450 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 25, 1992

    Regarding appellant’s section 1983 claim, appellees argue that “[the TDCJ employees] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Prison officials and officers may rely on qualified immunity in section 1983 actions. … To meet this burden, the plaintiff must estab *453 lish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Loria v. Gorman

    306 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2002

    However, if we decide otherwise, we proceed to “ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time it was allegedly infringed. Id. … Appellants’ Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity from Claims Arising out of the April 10, 1998 Arrest of Loria for OGA 1.

    Cited 174 timesPublished
  • Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

    708 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

    Qualified immunity protects government officers “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 known … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

    Cited 128 timesPublished
  • Joseph E. Birrell v. Robert Brown, Director, Michigan Dept. Of Corrections

    867 F.2d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1989

    Upon reference, the magistrate reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations and reported in a twenty page recommendation that the defendants could not establish qualified immunity to insulate themselves under the circumstances. … A prison official’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity should be denied only when he acts intentionally, or when his alleged actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would

    Cited 107 timesPublished
  • Jill S. N. Schaffer v. Bryan Beringer

    842 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 21, 2016

    -4- Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless their conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a … Thus, the qualified immunity analysis is divided into two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

    Cited 50 timesPublished
  • Tunnell v. Crosby

    657 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2009

    This is so because the motions to dismiss plainly must be granted anyway based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … The defendants thus have qualified immunity. See, e.g., Anderson v.

    Cited 1 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.