Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1980

10,000+ results

1.93s

  • Hernandez v. Causey

    District Court, S.D. Mississippi · May 4, 2021

    CAUSEY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In his Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity, Causey argues there is no evidence that he violated a clearly established right when he … right and 2) whether the right was clearly established.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Johnnie Savory v. Allen Andrews

    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

    The officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity only if their interrogation techniques did not violate Savory’s clearly established right to due process. Rivas-Villegas v. … Regardless, focusing on this difference is too myopic an approach given that Savory need only present similar—not identical—cases to satisfy qualified immunity’s “clearly established” requirement.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • White v. Martin

    26 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 19, 1998

    In a section 1983 action, qualified immunity shields an official sued in his individual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Campbell v. District of Columbia

    245 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

    “Qualified immunity prevents officials who violate the law from having to defend against lawsuits for money damages unless the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken gave those officials … Accordingly, under clearly established precedent, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, on the undisputed facts, the officers would have had “fair warning” that they

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Estate of Davis Ex Rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills

    406 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 2005

    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.”17 Qualified immunity is … violated clearly established law.

    Cited 391 timesPublished
  • Gauthier v. Town of Dracut

    19 Mass. L. Rptr. 579 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 27, 2005

    Qualified Immunity The defendants claim as an affirmative defense that Shaw and Piendak are entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … , those rights were clearly established.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Harris v. Board of Education

    105 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

    Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … him his salary and benefits violated clearly established law.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • David K. Huskey v. City of San Jose Joan Gallo George Rios Ralph Greene

    204 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2000

    immunity because the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … immunity because those rights were not clearly established.

    Cited 244 timesPublished
  • Calderón-Garnier v. Sánchez-Ramos

    439 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2006

    Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct at issue.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Porter Ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Ascension Parish School Board

    301 F. Supp. 2d 576 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jan 21, 2004

    Whether Conrad Braud is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity Qualified-immunity protects officials from section 1983 liability provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, the Court finds that Braud is entitled to qualified immunity even if Adam’s rights were found to be clearly established. 126 2.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Glenda Smith v. City of Wyoming

    821 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2016

    It is sufficient to hold that, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Smith, Officer Riggs did not violate clearly established law, and he therefore was protected by qualified immunity. … Turning to the clearly established law question, we must first ask whether the Ohio law defining obstruction of official business is clearly established. We conclude that it is.

    Cited 56 timesPublished
  • Washington v. Fenty

    611 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

    were violated were not clearly established. … A defense of qualified immunity fails only if the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Teresa Graham v. Shannon Barnette

    970 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

    The officers respond that probable cause is not the correct standard and that, even if it was, the standard was not clearly established, meaning they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

    225 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2002

    Defendants argue in their reply brief for the first time that they are also covered by qualified immunity in that they have not violated any clearly established rights. … Qualified Immunity In their reply brief, the Defendants raise for the first time the defense of qualified immunity from suit.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Hodgson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

    963 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 30, 1997

    The Defendants, however, insist that this claim be dismissed on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. 13 Government officials may raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to actions … Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ).

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Manzer v. TOWN OF ANSON

    771 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 2011

    The Plaintiffs then argue that the second element of the qualified immunity test — whether their rights were clearly established — is met. Id. at 12-13. … The Barton Court, in its own qualified immunity analysis, held that in 2006 and 2007, it was clearly established that a campaign of harassment could support a First Amendment retaliation claim if the harassment would deter

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Johnson v. Clifton

    74 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

    A public official may immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity where the disputed issue involves whether or not the defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established law. … clearly established law.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Tricoci v. Blackman

    District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 27, 2024

    A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a discretionary function that is objectively lawful in light of clearly established law and the information an officer possessed at the time. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78 (2017) ("Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or which a reasonable person would have known.")

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Marshall v. Montaplast of N. Am., Inc.

    575 S.W.3d 650 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2019

    This Court held that the rule prohibiting noncompete agreements qualified as such. Id. … Immunity is a shield. It frees a party from the burden of litigation. It does not create a sword or a right to engage in an act.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Peete v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County

    486 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2007

    clearly established." … The Court held that Champion's arrest and restraint by police constituted a clearly established unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and denied the police officers' argument that they were entitled to qualified

    Cited 48 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.