Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1891

10,000+ results

1.93s

  • Robinson v. Cook

    863 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2012

    “[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009). … Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established The defendants argue that even if Mario’s constitutional rights were violated, they are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established

    Cited 57 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
  • Statchen v. Palmer, et al.

    2009 DNH 137 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 15, 2009

    Even if the force used fell into the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force, Scott and Palmer would be entitled to qualified immunity. The cell incident is less clearly defined. … The statute also echoes the standard for qualified immunity.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Harbert International v. James

    157 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

    clearly established law. … violate clearly established law, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects him.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Richard Winn David Ehrlich Newlin Corporation and Somerset of Virginia, Inc. v. Wayne L. Lynn

    941 F.2d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 4, 1991

    Qualified immunity is the more limited type of immunity, and generally protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as [their] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because their actions were violative of “clearly established statutory and constitutional rights” and they should have been aware of this.

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Hamilton v. Leavy

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

    Id. 58 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 57 timesPublished
  • Jerry Turpin and Bonnie Turpin v. The County of Rock, Nebraska Galen Svoboda, in His Official Capacity and Jim Anderson, in His Official Capacity

    262 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2001

    Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the events in … The inquiry in determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity focuses on whether the Appellants have asserted a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and, if so, whether there are genuine

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • Rayfield v. Grand Rapids, City of

    373 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 17, 2018

    If either factor is not satisfied, qualified immunity shields the officer from damages. … . *970 In sum, "[t]o survive [a] motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that 'plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Harvey v. Montgomery County

    881 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2012

    “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Deputies’ actions were simply not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Therefore, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference to medical care claim.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Robert Pachaly, Jr. v. City of Lynchburg R.D. Viar William G. Petty, and Commonwealth of Virginia

    897 F.2d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 2, 1990

    A government official performing a discretionary function does so clothed with qualified immunity shielding him from civil liability as long as his actions do not violate clearly established tenets of constitutional law. … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant's conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

    Cited 152 timesPublished
  • Mara v. Rilling

    921 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 2019

    But  even  if  the  answer  is  yes,  or  not  definitively  no,  a  defendant  may  still  be  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  if  the  right  was  not  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  his  challenged actions … The district court still needed to address the second qualified  immunity  inquiry,  i.e.,  whether  the  rights  at  issue  were  clearly  established  in  the  context  presented,  such  that  every  reasonable  officer

    Cited 81 timesPublished
  • Jones v. PRAMSTALLER

    678 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 22, 2009

    “Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … Cabinet for Workforce Dev., 289 F.3d 958 , 964 (6th Cir.2002). 5 *629 This means that Jones cannot defeat the qualified-immunity defense with preAugust 28, 2007 precedent “clearly establishing” his general right to be free

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Hathaway v. Bazany

    507 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

    does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Brosseau, 543 U.S. 194 (2004), makes it highly unlikely that the Hathaways could prevail in establishing that Bazany infringed on a clearly established right because of its emphasis on the “‘hazy border between excessive

    Cited 418 timesPublished
  • Jacob v. Township of West Bloomfield

    531 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2008

    This second prong of the qualified immunity test clearly weighs in Plaintiffs favor. … claim of qualified immunity.

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Wolfel v. Morris

    972 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

    Government officials who perform discretionary functions and whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known are entitled to qualified immunity … In a case decided before the qualified immunity doctrine was firmly established in Harlow , our Circuit held that immunity was available to “a prison official who relies on a facially valid regulation unless he knows or should

    Cited 71 timesPublished
  • Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch, Clay Coffey, Wayne Bradford, Ken Wheeler, and Gerald Cozart v. Elnor Maxine Poyner, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of William Euell Poyner, and as Sole Heir of William Euell Poyner

    Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 25, 2001

    The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Muslim v. Frame

    897 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1995

    Whether the Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument is that summary judgment should be granted because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers from damages claims when their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Winder v. Gallardo

    118 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2024

    Qualified immunity protects government officials “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 … We decline Appellants’ invitation to upend qualified immunity. Before delving into their case’s substance, Appellants first request that we upend qualified immunity outright.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Turner v. Huibregtse

    421 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 22, 2006

    Qualified Immunity Defendants Mickelson and Esser contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct in the course of plaintiffs search did not violate any of plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … I conclude that plaintiffs claims against defendants Mickelson and Esser are not barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez

    680 F. Supp. 2d 1318 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 13, 2010

    The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that in this Circuit the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “only by decisions of the U.S. … to qualified immunity.

    Reversed on other grounds by Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816 (2010)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.