Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1974

10,000+ results

1.21s

  • Gilbert v. Selsky

    867 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 1994

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability provided that their actions are discretionary in nature and do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional … Sullivan, 720 F.Supp. 40, 43-44 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (right to independent assessment not clearly established in 1988).

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Naccarato v. Oliver

    882 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 19, 1995

    Further, even when the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct, an official is still entitled to immunity were it objectively reasonable for him to believe the conduct lawful. … If an officer kicked a handcuffed arrestee in the back, that act would violate a clearly established constitutional right and this Court would not grant immunity from liability for such conduct.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Jordan Jones v. George Solomon

    90 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

    “To overcome an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the … Under binding case law, however, a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity where his actions did not violate a clearly established right.

    Cited 44 timesPublished
  • Stone-El v. Fairman

    785 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 17, 1991

    We now turn to the issue of qualified immunity. B. … However, as the right in question was not clearly established in reference to the facts of this case, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. As such, we dismiss Stone-El’s amended complaint in its entirety.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Lowther v. Children Youth and Family Department

    101 F.4th 742 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 7, 2024

    Miles are entitled to qualified immunity because the Lowthers had not shown the alleged violation was clearly established. … We affirmed based on qualified immunity, concluding the law was not clearly established. Id. at 1135–38.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Navorro-Monzo v. Hughes

    297 Ark. 444 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1989

    Both of these cases concerned qualified privilege or immunity. … It was clearly a privileged publication. Neither the allegations in the complaint nor other matters presented to the court, even if established at trial, would support a finding of malice.

    Cited 33 timesPublished
  • Session v. Wargo

    District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 12, 2021

    rights that (1) were “clearly 9 established” at the time of the conduct, and (2) would have been known to a reasonable person in the official’s position … be undertaken and qualified immunity is appropriate).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Cooper v. Brunswick County Sheriff's Department

    896 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2012

    Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Vanterpool v. Cuccinelli

    998 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 7, 2014

    To grant a defendant qualified immunity a court must find that the defendant’s conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … established in the Fourth Circuit at all times relevant to this action, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 6 C.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Charles v. Grief

    522 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2008

    that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … established law, officials may sometimes be required to proceed to trial even though the ultimate resolution of those factual disputes may show that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability.”

    Cited 64 timesPublished
  • Cooney v. White

    845 P.2d 353 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1992

    The United States Supreme Court has firmly established that qualified immunity provides adequate protection for many of the duties required of a prosecutor. … In setting forth the appropriate test for qualified immunity, the court in Schrob, 948 F.2d at 1420-21 (footnote omitted) stated: [The prosecutor] will be shielded from liability of his "conduct does not violate clearly established

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Williams v. Morgan

    710 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 1989

    Under the objective standard, the immunity defense is unavailable to the defendant “if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] challenged conduct, if [he] knew or … The question becomes, therefore, whether he forfeited that immunity if he engaged in conduct which he knew or should have known would infringe a “clearly established” constitutional right enjoyed by the plaintiff.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex.

    565 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2009

    in their judicial capacities when they established and implemented the appointment policy and denied Davis’s application; (2) that the defendant judges were immune from suit in their official capacities under the Eleventh … The 2001 amendment established a much more detailed procedural regime for the appointment of counsel in criminal cases that requires judges in each county to establish standardized countywide procedures.

    Cited 194 timesPublished
  • Reid v. Pautler

    36 F. Supp. 3d 1067 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2014

    established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Barts v. Joyner

    865 F.2d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 1989

    Qualified Immunity Appellants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct in March 1983 did not violate clearly established law. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional right); State v.

    Cited 115 timesPublished
  • French v. Merrill

    15 F.4th 116 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 1, 2021

    Hence, the officers - 34 - violated clearly established law and are not entitled to qualified immunity. C. … qualified immunity

    Cited 57 timesPublished
  • Gutierrez v. City of Indianapolis

    886 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2012

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are shielded “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that Officer Kermon is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Gutierrez’s excessive force claim.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Misty Kingsland v. City of Miami

    382 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

    “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly 11 We recall that probable cause requires that “‘ … “Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Marcelino Alvarez-Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, C.J. Nichols, In His/Her Individual and Official Capacity, and Waterloo Police Department

    Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 6, 2023

    First, Iowa Code section 670.4A(1)(a) (2022) provides qualified immunity to employees or officers subject to claims arising under the IMTCA: 1. … The right, privilege, or immunity secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation the state of the law was not sufficiently clear

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Doe v. Hazard

    152 F. Supp. 3d 859 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 15, 2016

    The -plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, O’Malley v. … The Court also finds no binding case law that any of Simpson’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

    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.