Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1980

10,000+ results

3.28s

  • Browning v. Snead

    886 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 17, 1995

    Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994) our Court of Appeals discussed generally the application of qualified immunity as follows: “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Amtreco, Inc. v. O.H. Materials, Inc.

    802 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 13, 1992

    for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Assuming that plaintiffs had constitutional rights protecting them from the alleged wrongful conduct of the federal defendants, these rights are obviously not clearly established.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Blouin v. Spitzer

    356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

    The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because "plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity 34 We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official "violated clearly established rights of which

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

    30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

    “The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

    Cited 143 timesPublished
  • Velez-Diaz v. Vega-Irizarry

    421 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 2, 2005

    We will, therefore, address this issue in our qualified immunity analysis. … Finally, we must determine "whether a 'reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated' the clearly established right at issue." Id.

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • Moore v. Tri-City Hospital Authority

    696 F. Supp. 1496 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 27, 1988

    Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 733 (3d Cir.1987) (qualified immunity defense rejected in patronage dismissal of a policeman because “as of 1982 the law was ‘clearly established’ that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation … Qualified Immunity (6) Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities on either of plaintiff’s claims?

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • William Cass v. City of Dayton

    770 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2014

    In the alternative, the district court held that House was entitled to qualified immunity because Jordan’s constitutional rights were not clearly established. … There are two general steps to the qualified immunity analysis.

    Cited 58 timesPublished
  • García-Díaz v. Cintrón-Suárez

    120 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 23, 2015

    The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public 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 … As such, the court focuses on the second prong of the qualified immunity test, namely, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. 1.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Arnold v. McClain

    926 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 21, 1991

    to good faith or qualified immunity for his actions. 2. … Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of clearly established law by Defendant or the requisite nexus to his actions.

    Cited 38 timesPublished
  • Kent v. Katz

    327 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 20, 2004

    Under both federal and state law, a qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … In sum, Kent has not established that he is entitled to JMOL on either excessive force or qualified immunity. II.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Tinsley v. Pittari

    952 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 1996

    Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. … To the extent the claim is so construed, defendants’ previously-established entitlement to qualified immunity is applicable. The outcome is the same under a Fourteenth Amendment analysis.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • López-Quiñones v. Puerto Rico National Guard

    526 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 21, 2008

    Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 , 100 S.Ct. 1287 , 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), and that in any event, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because any such protection was not clearly established at the time of Lopez’ termination … Still remaining is the question whether his status was clearly established at the time of his termination.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Burgess v. West

    817 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 25, 1993

    To summarize, public officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … -Once the defendant has successfully raised the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must come “forward with facts or allegations to show both that the defendants’ alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • 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
  • Jones v. Dalton

    867 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 3, 2012

    First, “[t]he threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. … immunity analysis has been satisfied. 10 Furthermore, there can be little doubt that the right to be free from searches and seizures not based on probable cause or a recognized exception was clearly established.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Evans v. City of Zebulon

    351 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

    Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because as of January 22, 1999, the law was not clearly established that an arrestee could not constitutionally be strip searched under the conditions alleged. … Only decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court of the relevant state clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1032 n. 10. .

    Vacated by Evans v. City of Zebulon, 364 F.3d 1298 (2004)Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Leibowitz v. CITY OF MINEOLA, TEX.

    660 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 2009

    Qualified Immunity Bittner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials from liability for monetary damages for acts in the performance of discretionary functions that were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Peter Wenk v. Edward O'Reilly

    783 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2015

    of qualified immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerns not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but whether certain alleged facts reflect a violation of clearly established law.” … 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

    Cited 51 timesPublished
  • Nahinu v. Naso

    District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 30, 2023

    Police officers and other state actors may be entitled to qualified immunity. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. … statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Brindley v. Best

    192 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

    Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established rights.

    Cited 26 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.