Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1974

10,000+ results

3.53s

  • Branch International Services, Inc. v. Budde

    890 F. Supp. 659 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 15, 1995

    Alleging the violation of a broad constitutional right is insufficient to establish the violation of a clearly established right for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs argue, in their response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, that the right to access to courts was a clearly established constitutional right, and therefore the qualified immunity defense is not applicable to this

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Shultz v. Sundberg

    577 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 13, 1984

    Defendants Sundberg, Vaden, Mix, Sheffield, Gorsuch and Hickey’s Motion for Summary Judgment — Qualified Immunity. … Under the test for official immunity, as modified by Harlow , on a motion such as this for summary judgment, the court may determine, “not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Samaniego v. City of Kodiak

    2 P.3d 78 · Alaska Supreme Court · May 19, 2000

    The superior court set forth its view of Alaska's law of qualified immunity in a memorandum and ordered the parties to supplement their briefing. It then granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald 14 test for official immunity. 15 Under this standard, "the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the facts

    Overruled in part by Sheldon v. City of Ambler, 2008 Alas. LEXIS 38 (2008)Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Pham v. University of Louisiana at Monroe

    194 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 13, 2016

    On the other hand, the clearly established prong does not necessarily require a case- “directly on point.” See Morgan v. … Jackson is entitled to qualified immunity. 2.Dr. El Sayed Dr. El Sayed is also entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • MacE Ex Rel. Revill v. City of Palestine, Texas

    213 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Feb 8, 2002

    The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, like this one, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Wendell Domina v. George VanPelt

    235 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2000

    show a violation of clearly established law. … The commissioners would nonetheless be protected by qualified immunity if in early 1998 (the time of their alleged misconduct) it was not clearly established that the speech in which Mr.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Wagner v. Genesee County Board of Commissioners

    607 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 23, 1985

    However, the Supreme Court has concluded that an immunity that was “well established at common law at the time § 1983 was enacted and ... … here just because these officers’ immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Childress v. Walker

    943 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 30, 2013

    Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the plaintiff cannot prove that the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, then qualified immunity applies.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

    135 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 5, 2001

    This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. GJR Investments, 132 F.3d at 1367 . … rules that were “clearly established” at the *1217 time it was taken.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Jaglowicz v. Bethel Township

    178 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2016

    Qualified Immunity Chief Worrilow and the five township supervisors invoke qualified immunity. Ja-glowicz having conceded that Worrilow has no liability, we consider qualified immunity for the five township supervisors. … In other words, if we find that the alleged right was not clearly established, the inquiry ends and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Lee v. Young

    533 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

    A two-part test is used to ascertain whether qualified immunity exists. First, the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Triad Associates, Inc. v. … Since this right was clearly established in 1998-1999, it was also clearly established during the relevant period of time here, 2001-2002.

    Cited 180 timesPublished
  • McGovern v. City of Minneapolis

    480 N.W.2d 121 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jan 21, 1992

    Qualified immunity The individual officers argue they are entitled to qualified immunity against respondents’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We agree. … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the officials violated clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Pleasant v. Lovell

    654 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 12, 1987

    Alternatively, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable investigator would have known. … Under Harlow , then, qualified immunity is established if it is proven that there was no violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Hammett v. Oklahoma Dept. of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services

    153 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 1998

    Because Plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, and given the scant factual record on this Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is premature to grant qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir.1992) (stating that court cannot frame question of qualified immunity as factual to avoid determining whether the law was clearly established at time of alleged violation). 17 AFFIRMED.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Anderson v. Larson

    327 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2003

    IV 20 Qualified immunity shields government officials from federal suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … The inquiry "focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of the official's acts," and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because "a reasonably competent public official

    Cited 41 timesPublished
  • Dean v. Childs

    262 Mich. App. 48 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 13, 2004

    involved ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” 11 If no constitutional violation occurred, the defendant has qualified immunity from liability. 12 “Qualified immunity … Childs claims common-law immunity under the public duty doctrine.

    Reversed in part, on other grounds by Dean v. Childs, 474 Mich. 914 (2005)Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Parks v. Warren Correctional Institution

    51 F. App'x 137 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2002

    allegedly infringed was “clearly established[.]” … cannot review the issue of qualified immunity.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Sanford v. Russell

    381 F. Supp. 3d 905 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 15, 2019

    Fabrication of Evidence Claim The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's fabricated evidence claim because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law at the time of … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, "the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established." McDonald v.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Golthy v. Alabama

    287 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2003

    First, the words of a federal statute or constitutional provision may be specific enough “to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total … If the circumstances facing the official are “materially similar” to those of the fact-specific case, this precedent can clearly establish the applicable law and qualified immunity will not be warranted. Id. at 1352 .

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Lopez

    District Court, N.D. California · Dec 11, 2025

    That 19 conclusion means that the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. 20 In determining whether an officer has qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the 21 officer violated a constitutional … immunity.”

    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.