Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1862

10,000+ results

1.77s

  • Hamilton v. Leavy

    322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

    Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton’s right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

    Cited 70 timesPublished
  • Matter of Public Law No. 154-1990

    561 N.E.2d 791 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1990

    The immunity provisions of the Attorney Trust Account Act clearly and literally attempt to exercise by limitation the attorney disciplinary function of the judicial department. … Apart from the attorney discipline immunity provisions, the Attorney Trust Account Act establishes a fund to receive proceeds from interest generated from attorney trust accounts and a board to establish procedures and oversee

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Jackson v. City Of Bremerton

    268 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

    The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects &#167 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). 12 In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light

    Cited 171 timesPublished
  • Farrelly v. City of Concord

    902 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 2, 2012

    Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, 1(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce . … Even so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • KRISTINA MOFFATT VS. PARSIPPANY TROY HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-2437-14, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

    New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2018

    Immunity applies when snow or ice is the alleged cause of the accident. … Super. at 269 ("In the absence of a clearly established landlord-tenant relationship, our courts have previously rejected attempts by slip and fall plaintiffs to classify a particular public entity as akin to a commercial

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Nesmith Through Nesmith v. Grimsley

    702 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 7, 1988

    Plaintiff objects to the finding of qualified immunity. … The United States Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity in Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Gorman v. Bartch

    152 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 1998

    The defendants argue in response that their conduct did not violate clearly established rights under the statutes. 8 We review de novo the decision granting qualified immunity. Rowe v. … Id., 502 U.S. at 25-27 , 112 S.Ct. at 362. 20 The defense of qualified immunity gives government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from liability unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory

    Cited 149 timesPublished
  • Carlin v. Manu

    72 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 1999

    established” one which would foreclose the defendants from qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Adams v. City of Shreveport

    269 F. Supp. 3d 743 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 28, 2017

    A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … This right is a clearly established right for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See id.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Mitchell v. Rice

    954 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

    On the other hand, if the law was not so clearly established as to give notice to a reasonable prison official, we must permit appellants an immunity defense and dismiss this case against them. … Because the record in this case does not adequately address all the issues necessary to determine whether prison officials violated clearly established law, we cannot grant qualified immunity at this time.

    Cited 36 timesPublished
  • Stewart v. City of Prairie Village

    904 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 17, 2012

    immunity, Plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established. 23 The Court “cannot find qualified immunity wherever we have a new fact pattern.” 24 The Tenth Circuit has “shifted the qualified immunity analysis from … A plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right for each defendant in a § 1983 suit who claims qualified immunity; 47 § 1983 does not give a plaintiff a right of action against an individual

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Carr v. Tatangelo

    156 F. Supp. 2d 1369 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 31, 2001

    If there was no underlying constitutional violation, then Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether the law was clearly established. See Hartley v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because they were unaware that Carr had been shot and because Carr has not shown that their conduct violated clearly established law.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Hora v. Risner

    District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 24, 2021

    immunity analysis is whether the law was clearly established. 2. … Clearly Established Law? In Plumhoff v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Paul v. City of Rochester

    452 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2006

    City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (6th Cir.2005) (defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it had not been clearly established that tackling plaintiff under the circumstances constituted excessive force); Soares … The City did not raise qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. 8 .

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Parker v. Board of Regents of the Tulsa Junior College

    981 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 1992

    Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” … facts are in dispute which would defeat the claim of qualified immunity.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Brogdon v. City of New Rochelle

    200 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2002

    Furthermore, both Benge and Chiera are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court has recently defined what it means for a law to be “clearly established” in the context of a qualified immunity defense: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours

    Cited 83 timesPublished
  • Alfred Garionis, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Harriet Newton and Keith Barr, Appellees/cross-Appellants

    827 F.2d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 1987

    Newton and Barr are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2818 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Harlow v. … It follows a fortiori that neither the *309 arrest nor the subsequent transfer of custody to Barr violated clearly established law.

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Santiago v. Fields

    170 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 17, 2001

    Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they cannot be held liable in their individual capacities under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Also, at the time of the events at issue, plaintiffs Eighth Amendment right against excessive force was clearly established.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Ecclesiastical Washington v. Larry Denney

    900 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2018

    The officials appeal, arguing that (1) Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth Amendment rights and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity; and … Discussion The corrections officials appeal, arguing that (1) they are entitled to qualified immunity because Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth

    Cited 50 timesPublished
  • Smith v. Blodgett

    798 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1992

    Defendant moved to dismiss this Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the law was not clearly established that Washington’s administrative segregation regulations created a liberty interest protected … The court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

    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.