Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
5.26s
50 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 14, 1995
Qualified immunity does not shield the officers from a lawsuit for damages if a reasonable officer would have known the officers’ actions violated clearly established law. Hummel-Jones v. … First, the law prohibiting the officers’ conduct was clearly established at the time of the raid.
Cited 39 timesPublished587 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jun 11, 1984
Prison officials have qualified immunity from monetary liability under *380 § 1983. Procunier v. Navarette, supra, 434 U.S. at 561 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 . … Not only was the law not clearly established in June of 1982, when the envelope from the FBI arrived at the prison, it still isn’t clearly established in the Ninth Circuit.
Cited 4 timesPublished195 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 16, 2016
Qualified Immunity Lastly, this Court how moves to consider whether Co-Defendant Martinez-Ortiz is protected by qualified immunity. The qualified immunity doctrine offers public officials complete immunity from suit. … In order to *449 grant qualified immunity, the First Circuit has clearly laid out a two-step process in which the court must engage: The two-step procedure for assessing a plea of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss
Cited 4 timesPublished78 Ohio App. 3d 807 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1992
R.C. 4123.741 clearly provides immunity to a tortfeasor “employee” from liability for damages resulting from injuries received in the course of and arising out of the injured employee’s employment. … The General Assembly has established certain basic guidelines to assist in determining legislative intent.
Cited 11 timesPublished381 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 timesPublished488 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 4, 1980
a qualified immunity. … Likewise, this Court is not satisfied that the defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity in the instant case can summarily be established.
Cited 5 timesPublishedJoseph De Ritis v. Thomas McGarrigle
861 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 2017
not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … Here, addressing both prongs of qualified immunity, the District Court concluded that Roger had violated De Ritis’s right to free speech and that the right, as defined by the District Court, was clearly established.
Cited 56 timesPublished533 F.3d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2008
An appeal is proper if the defendant sets off to show that the law was not clearly established at the time of -6- the challenged action, or that qualified immunity is proper even … was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.
Cited 38 timesPublished18 S.W.3d 310 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · May 18, 2000
Therefore, in view of the confusion regarding the terms, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity,” it is not clear from the record that appellees presented the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity” to the trial … Thus, we do not consider the merit of “qualified immunity” as a ground for summary judgment in favor of Williams, individually.
Cited 14 timesPublished939 F.2d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 26, 1991
“Whether an official may prevail in [her] qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ... … No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v.
Cited 34 timesPublished681 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. Vermont · Dec 29, 2009
Under qualified immunity doctrine, government actors are not liable for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Judge Sessions recently laid out the second step as follows: The second step of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the officials’ actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional lights of which
Cited 9 timesPublishedBaumeister v. New Mexico Commission for the Blind
425 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 20, 2006
. § 1983 generally are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that their actions violated a specific constitutional right and that the right which they allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of … P. 12(b)(6), and “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”
Cited 3 timesPublished388 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2004
R.Crim.P. 41 and state law did not constitute a § 1983 violation because the officers had not violated clearly established constitutional law. … If so, we next "ask whether the right was clearly established." Id.
Cited 5 timesPublishedLIBERTY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al. v. HALLIBURTON
328 Ga. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 31, 2014
Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including that defendants were entitled to sovereign and/or qualified immunity. … And “[a] waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from that waiver.” Ruff, 315 Ga. App. at 456 (footnote omitted).
Overruled on other grounds by Rivera v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770 (2016)Cited 19 timesPublished572 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2008
“[Pjublic officials ... are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then extant … “Hence, a defendant is not liable if he did not violate clearly established law or it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that he was not violating clearly established law.”
Cited 3 timesPublished899 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2012
Governmental officials are entitled to immunity from civil liability under § 1983 for their actions, with the important qualifier that the officials’ conduct must not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Snider’s argument against qualified immunity is that his “Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, seizures, and arrest was clearly established at the time.” DE 98 at 12.
Cited 6 timesPublished152 F.R.D. 66 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 1, 1993
It is difficult to establish a defense is clearly insufficient. Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1112 (E.D.N.C.1984). … Struck. 16 Failure to plead RICO allegations with sufficient probability to establish probable cause of causal connection. Struck. 17 No duty. Struck. 18 Sovereign immunity, qualified privilege.
Cited 82 timesPublished247 F. App'x 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2007
Willis also bears the burden of establishing that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768, 778 (6th Cir.2006). … This court has previously held, as did the district court, that Tennessee law provides qualified or good faith immunity of government employees for state law torts. Rogers v.
Cited 6 timesUnpublished852 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 9, 1994
In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant official violated a “clearly established” right held by the plaintiff. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.
Cited 33 timesPublished953 F. Supp. 1352 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 1996
The state defendants contend that, in their individual capacities, they are immune from damages under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna