Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
3.32s
2019 Ohio 1083 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2019
Pasco’s motion to dismiss because the unambiguous language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) limits immunity to minor drug possession offenses. … This Court concluded that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense
Cited 2 timesPublished547 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 5, 2008
Though the motion did not refer to "qualified immunity" or to "clearly established law," Gerrish contends he adequately raised that issue. … Gerrish did not refer to "clearly established law" and made no effort to address his argument to qualified immunity.
Abrogated on other grounds by Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010)Cited 113 timesPublished56 Va. Cir. 407 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Sep 18, 2001
Qualified Immunity Recently in Saucier v. Katz, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of qualified immunity. No. 991977 (June 18,2001). … If the right was not clearly established or it would not be clear to a reasonable officer, in the same situation, that his conduct was unlawful, a court is entitled to grant summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.
Cited 1 timesPublished353 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018
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[ … were "clearly established" at the time of the incident.
Cited 10 timesPublished531 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2008
On appeal, Phelan maintains that Officer Dyas was not entitled to qualified immunity for the felony traffic stop. … Phelan construes this argument as an attempt by Officer Dyas to append a “third prong” to the qualified immunity inquiry: namely, whether the officer’s actions were reasonable even if they violated clearly established law
Cited 24 timesPublishedRichardson v. Dist. of Columbia
322 F. Supp. 3d 175 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 2018
He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity-no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.
Cited 11 timesPublishedJohnnie 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 timesPublished26 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 timesPublishedAnderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11
678 N.W.2d 651 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 2004
Second, an employee following the protocol would not be protected by common law official immunity unless the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official immunity. … Moreover, there was no clearly-established law in Minnesota that put Peterson on notice that state OSHA regulations were applicable beyond the employer-employee relationship.
Cited 61 timesPublished19 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 timesPublishedTheadore Black v. Thomas A. Coughlin III
76 F.3d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 9, 1996
immunity a “defendant must establish that he had an objectively reasonable belief that his act violated no clearly established rights,” id. at 54 ), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1837 , 131 L.Ed.2d 756 (1995); Walker … Moreover, to the extent that Black claims that Ryan was biased against him, it is not a given that Ryan would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, for it has long been clearly established that an inmate subject
Cited 306 timesPublishedDistrict 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 timesUnknown105 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 timesPublishedRichardson v. Nassau County Medical Center
840 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1994
Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability in a civil action if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Whether the government official can benefit from qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was
Cited 7 timesPublishedCampbell 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 timesPublished948 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 1991
In Morfin , a qualified immunity case, the court was asked to decide for the first time whether the plaintiffs, teachers, had a clearly established right in 1985 to associate with a labor union other than their exclusive … deciding whether or not a right was clearly established.”
Cited 90 timesPublished138 F. Supp. 3d 1086 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 30, 2015
R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. a. … State officials enjoy qualified immunity from a § 1983 action if their conduct did not violaté “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
Cited 29 timesPublishedPorter 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 timesPublished462 S.W.3d 403 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 1, 2015
established priorities and needs.” … Thus, the principal was entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCalderón-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
Ask Donna