Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1831

10,000+ results

1.60s

  • A.B. ex rel. B.S. v. Adams-Arapahoe 28J School District

    831 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2011

    Was the constitutional violation clearly established? Rice has asserted qualified immunity as a defense to these claims. Thus, she is liable only if her actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Burke also asserts qualified immunity. Therefore, she is liable for these constitutional violations only if they were clearly established at the time they were committed.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Harris v. Coweta County

    433 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2005

    The defendants having established their eligibility for qualified immunity, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appro *812 priate. Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194 . … Is Scott entitled to qualified immunity?

    Reversed on other grounds by Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007)Cited 35 timesPublished
  • Doe v. City of Chicago

    883 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 16, 1994

    Qualified Immunity Dr. Bransfield moves to dismiss the Section 504 claim against him on grounds of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Nicole Howell v. Rob Sanders

    668 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

    issue [] ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … The only remaining inquiry to establish qualified immunity under Kentucky law is whether the facts suggest that Sanders acted in bad faith. See Rowan Cnty., 201 S.W.3d at 475.

    Cited 85 timesPublished
  • Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King, United States of America David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger

    28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

    established under current law. 6 Accordingly, Vecera, Bridges, Burnett, and King are entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Davis v. Powell

    901 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 4, 2012

    Qualified Immunity All of the Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because they did not violate clearly established constitutional law, and they … Castro, 621 F.3d at 1199 (stating that courts can grant qualified immunity on the basis of the clearly established prong alone) (citing Rowlands, 606 F.3d at 651 ).

    Cited 48 timesPublished
  • Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch, Eastland County, and the City of Gorman 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
  • Kovats v. Rutgers, The State University

    822 F.2d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1987

    The Rutgers officials concede that were it clearly established that Rutgers’ regulations provide for de facto tenure by length of service, they would not be entitled to qualified immunity because Perry and Roth established … The court found that Varma’s claim implicated this clearly established law and, for that reason, denied Rutgers’ motion for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.

    Cited 31 timesPublished
  • State v. Andrews

    424 S.C. 304 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jul 18, 2018

    On appeal, Andrews argues the circuit court erred in (1) denying him immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act 1 **308 (the Act) due to inconsistent witness testimony, (2) refusing to qualify Investigator … He stated shootings typically caused "memory fragmentation[, a]nd after a couple of sleep cycles[,] you're able to consolidate your memories" and remember the event more clearly.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Rucker v. Marshall

    119 F.4th 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 14, 2024

    To deny qualified immunity, a district court must find “that the alleged conduct amounts to a constitutional violation” and that “the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.” Buehler v. … To establish excessive force, a plaintiff must show “(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable.” Byrd v.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • State of Michigan v. Brandon McQueen

    Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

    ’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his … they are clearly erroneous.31 A ruling is clearly erroneous “if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.”32 III.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Neague v. Cynkar

    258 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2001

    Id. 14 This court has held that the right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir. 1993). … It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis.

    Cited 31 timesPublished
  • Brown v. City of Atlanta

    284 F. Supp. 3d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 9, 2018

    Thus, the court now considers whether those rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, because Brown has pointed to clearly established law that prohibits the alleged conduct, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment must be DENIED.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Scocca v. Smith

    912 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2012

    This' is because, for qualified immunity, the Court must consider what the clearly established law was at the time of the sheriffs decision to deny Mr. Scocca’s application for a CCW license. … “Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official' would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

    882 F.2d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 1989

    Bradford Area School Dist., 667 F.Supp. 1088, 1098 (W.D.Pa.1987). *723 On appeal, defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had no clearly established duty to protect Stoneking, and therefore … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

    Cited 105 timesPublished
  • Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety

    237 Ariz. 414 · Arizona Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2015

    Before trial, DPS moved for a jury instruction on qualified immunity under § 12-820.02(A)(7). … , qualified immunity, and affirmative defenses for public entities and employees).

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Thomas Patrick Walsh v. Nicholas Mellas and Harry Martin

    837 F.2d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1988

    It was not “plain error” for the district court to deny Mellas and Martin qualified immunity. … Defendants’ delay in pursuing the qualified immunity issue has frustrated these important goals.

    Declined to follow by Mayoral, Joel v. Sheahan, Michael F., 245 F.3d 934 (2001)Cited 133 timesPublished
  • Gessner v. City of Union

    159 Ohio App. 3d 43 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2004

    Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the latter two grounds, but overruled the motion to the extent that it was based on Union’s qualified immunity. … .” {¶ 31} Discharge is clearly a matter that stems from an employment relationship.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Andy Thayer v. Ralph Chiczewski

    705 F.3d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2012

    “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights Nos. 10-1974 & 10-2064 15 of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Id.

    Cited 218 timesPublished
  • Caddell v. Campbell

    District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2021

    Separately, he argues that even if a jailor could bear legal liability in that setting, it was not clearly established that a jailor could, and thus qualified immunity is warranted. (Id. at #209–213). … To succeed on his qualified immunity defense, on the other hand, Jones must establish that Cadell failed to allege that Jones’s “conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established law at the time.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown

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.