Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1861

10,000+ results

1.48s

  • Christopher Cremeans v. William Wrenn, Christopher Kench, Michael Zenk, Jon Fouts, and Nichole Kipphut

    2019 DNH 060 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2019

    capacities are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity because such a right was not clearly established in 2017. … Qualified immunity shields individual officers from claims for damages “‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • S.R. Nehad v. Neal Browder

    929 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2019

    Qualified Immunity A government official’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on “(1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … Browder is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity under the clearly established prong. D.

    Cited 207 timesPublished
  • Frazier v. Williams

    District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

    Ct. 808, 815 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability … established” at the time of the violation. 3 It is hard to understand why the Defendants waited until two years after this lawsuit was filed to raise the issue of qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Douglas Rush v. Barbara Perryman

    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

    The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush's rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush's right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Veritext Corp. v. Bonin

    259 F. Supp. 3d 484 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 10, 2017

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The Defendants raise the same arguments for their damages claim that they do,:-,for the .state action immunity claim. … Furthermore, qualified immunity is an affirmative defense and the Board Members must both plead and establish their entitlement to that defense. Gomez v.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Holloman v. Walker County Board of Education

    334 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2001

    Qualified Immunity Defense Once a governmental actor interposes the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff, in order to overcome it, must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions “violated clearly established statutory … been clearly established.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Knight v. Pugh

    801 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 10, 2011

    Qualified immunity protects police officers acting within their discretionary authority from civil liability in § 1983 actions so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Where, as here, qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, this Court must “look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.” *1240 O’Rourke, 378

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Tidwell v. City & County of Denver

    62 P.3d 1020 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2002

    vehicle operator or the governmental entity qualifies for immunity. … Therefore, he was not required to use his lights and sirens to qualify for immunity under the GIA.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo

    72 Haw. 586 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1992

    right which was clearly *589 established at the time the defendant acted. … Under Siegert the protected right must be clearly established.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Molina-Gomes v. Welinski

    676 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

    Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Hope v. … The test for whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity depends on: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Barham v. Salazar

    556 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

    United States, “[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 a reasonable person … If that question is answered in the affirmative, the court then asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ).

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Green v. Thoryk

    30 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1998

    . ¶¶ 18, 22, qualify as a violation of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Refusal to provide redress for baseless claims does not violate a clearly established right.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Neu v. Corcoran

    869 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 3, 1989

    We therefore have jurisdiction to review the immunity ruling. 8 2. Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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 have known."

    Cited 43 timesPublished
  • Annie Roberto v. Ricardo J. Bordallo and David L.G. Shimizu

    839 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1988

    The district court agreed that her forced resignation violated her clearly established statutory rights and that qualified immunity did not protect the appellants. … There is no question that if the plaintiff clearly was a classified employee, the appellants’ actions violated her well-established rights and a qualified immunity claim is of no avail.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Ronnie Lee McKnight v. John Rees, Daryll Richardson and John Walker

    88 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1996

    After reviewing the two lines of cases discussed supra, the Williams court held that “[t]he instant case clearly falls within the class of cases in which qualified immunity may be raised by a private defendant.” … The court believed that the fact that the defendant was “performing duties that would otherwise have to be performed by a public official who would clearly have qualified immunity” weighed in favor of granting qualified immunity

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • White v. Town of Chapel Hill

    899 F. Supp. 1428 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 1995

    Examining a claim of qualified immunity requires “(1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, … establish’ a right for qualified immunity purposes.”

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Slough v. Telb

    644 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2009

    Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for civil damages so long as their- conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … No clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants entry into Plaintiffs home. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in entering Plaintiffs home. b.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Steplight v. Belpulsi

    76 Ohio App. 3d 384 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

    Pursuant to Harlow , a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … The court restated *390 the purpose of the qualified immunity rule in Anderson v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Joseph W. Democko, Donald Jones and James Samis v. Iowa Department of Natural Resources

    840 N.W.2d 281 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 6, 2013

    Iowa Code chapter 483A establishes a framework for the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses in Iowa. … In Hoeven, the Eighth Circuit implied certain property rights established under state law may be fundamental.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Tracy Ray Vaughan, and Mark Koch, Donald Nelson, and Mark Osborne v. James Ricketts

    950 F.2d 1464 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 13, 1991

    Qualified immunity is available to government officials if they could reasonably have thought that their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law and the information they possessed. Anderson v. … By 1984, it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires that rectal *1469 searches in prisons be conducted with reasonable cause and in a reasonable manner. Bell v.

    Cited 39 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.