Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1861

10,000+ results

1.35s

  • Roth v. Veteran's Administration of the Government of the United States

    856 F.2d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

    Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a federal official has qualified immunity unless s/he “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … of qualified immunity.

    Overruled in part by Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Jacquelyn M. Chagnon v. Griffin Bell

    642 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 1980

    defense only in an area of “clearly established” law. … Rather, the question is whether the conduct complained of transgressed “clearly established” constitutional limits.

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor

    723 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 17, 2013

    jurisdiction only over qualified immunity appeal) … Martz and Taylor asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their Answer to Hernandez-Cuevas's complaint and filed a motion to dismiss arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity on Hernandez-Cuevas's

    Cited 219 timesPublished
  • Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera Monroig

    30 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 23, 1998

    Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established” in this Circuit. … In addition, the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from political discrimination and actual or constructive patronage dismissals was clearly established in the First Circuit

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Shaboon v. Duncan

    252 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

    rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Further, these violations might be found to be so “clearly established” as to overcome Duncan’s qualified immunity defense.

    Cited 63 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
  • Hoyer v. DiCocco

    457 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 22, 2006

    Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did *116 not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in … Was the Violation Contrary to Clearly Established Law?

    Reversed on other grounds by Hoyer v. DiCocco, 224 F. App'x 103 (2007)Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Solis-Alarcon v. United States

    432 F. Supp. 2d 236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2006

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory authority or con *246 stitutional … understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established right at issue.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Torres ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Amato

    22 F. Supp. 3d 166 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2014

    Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also “immunity from suit”).

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Davis v. Carroll

    390 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 27, 2005

    Whether Defendants are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Trammell v. Wright

    489 S.W.3d 636 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016

    For example, “qualified immunity” is defined as the “[a]ffirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Bakos v. Roach

    California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2025

    Defendants cross-appeal, challenging the trial court’s conclusion that they lack qualified immunity. … entitlement to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Palisano v. City of Clearwater

    219 F. Supp. 2d 1249 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 14, 2002

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental officials are shielded from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … defeating qualified immunity).

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Keller v. McElveen

    744 So. 2d 643 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1999

    Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the United States Supreme Court discussed the concept of prosecutorial immunity in the context of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit and concluded that the well-established … Qualified immunity ‘“represents the norm’ ” for executive officers ... so when a prosecutor “functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court” he is entitled only to qualified immunity.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Robert Reeves v. Wayne County

    Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2025

    and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity.” … Second, we hold that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity only for judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and qualified immunity for administrative or investigative acts.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Whelehan v. County of Monroe

    558 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 22, 1983

    only to the qualified good-faith immunity asserted by the respondent in that case. … Therefore the risk of removal, even if made explicit by the examining officers, cannot be regarded as coercive because it existed as an ordinary and clearly apparent consequence of James’s failure to establish his innocence

    Cited 58 timesPublished
  • Clemmons v. Armontrout

    477 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

    Qualified Immunity 10 We review de novo the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Investigator Brooks. McClendon v. … To determine whether a right is "clearly established," we ask "whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted."

    Cited 220 timesPublished
  • Anderson v. City of Bellevue

    862 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2012

    Qualified Immunity The “doctrine of 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 … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich.

    Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 26, 2018

    To avoid the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v. … Because the constitutional right to be free of discrimination because of race and/or sex and police “cover-ups” was clearly established, Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex.

    652 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2009

    The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to § 1983 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must prove Dr. Bolin violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gibson v.

    Cited 2 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.