Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1936

10,000+ results

1.96s

  • Mutter v. Sanders

    611 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 4, 2009

    immunity because their alleged conduct was not clearly established to be violative of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity (1) The Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims included in Count 1 of the complaint because it was not clearly established that Sanders violated the Plaintiffs

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Mowbray v. Kozlowski

    724 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 25, 1989

    Under Harlow , state officials are protected by qualified immunity if the conduct complained of by the plaintiffs "did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … Qualified immunity is " immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like absolute immunity it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial."

    Reversed by Mowbray v. Kozlowski, 914 F.2d 593 (1990)Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Pennycuff v. McNutt

    95 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2015

    Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Kovats v. Rutgers

    633 F. Supp. 1469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 24, 1986

    The Third Circuit recently reviewed the ambiguities of Harlow’s “clearly established” requirement. In People of Three Mile Island v. … The state of the law was therefore clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ termination. Defendants should have related Perry and Roth to the instant situation. Hicks v.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Sanchez v. Nunemaker

    Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2026

    and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … Clearly Established Law We next address whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Harmon, 16 F.4th at 1163.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Vacca v. Barletta

    753 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 1990

    Qualified Immunity Government officials who are not granted absolute immunity are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred....

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ault

    256 U.S. 554 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 1, 1921

    The company is clearly, not answerable in the present action if the ordinary principles of common-law liability are to. be applied. … Whatever name be applied, the element of punishment clearly predominates and Congress has not given its consent that suits of this character be brought against the United' States.

    Cited 291 timesPublished
  • MLADEK v. Day

    320 F. Supp. 2d 1373 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 2004

    Defendant Day is immune from suit in his individual capacity, unless he violated “ ‘clearly established law,’ which consists of statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person should have known.” Hutton v. … Mladek did not violate any clearly established constitutional right.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Bernstein v. United States

    990 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Nov 10, 1997

    Qualified Immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate, clearly established statutory or constitutional

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Richard E. Maul v. Dr. Evan Constan, Anthony Metzcus, and Richard Gore

    928 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 1991

    The defendants clearly did not press a qualified immunity defense in any pretrial motions, at the pretrial conference, or at trial. … Aquino, 863 F.2d 1037 , 1041 n. 5 (1st Cir.1988), which says that a defendant “who has appropriately pleaded the affirmative defense of qualified immunity may establish his right to immunity at any point in the proceedings

    Cited 33 timesPublished
  • Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

    373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

    The qualified immunity defense “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the

    Cited 71 timesPublished
  • Andrew M. Rohman v. New York City Transit Authority (Nycta), Carmen J. Bianco

    215 F.3d 208 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 26, 2000

    Resolution of those issues is not required to determine whether Bianco was entitled to qualified immunity because, if he is, immunity protects him irrespective of whether Rohman can establish the elements of malicious prosecution … clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the defendant’s action was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

    Cited 330 timesPublished
  • Carvajal v. Dominguez

    542 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2008

    An appeal of an order denying qualified immunity is a well-established application of this doctrine: “A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to- the extent that it turns on an issue of law is an appealable … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer has qualified immunity. If yes, then the second step is whether the violated right was clearly established.

    Cited 110 timesPublished
  • Schneeweis v. Jacobs

    771 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 29, 1991

    Where qualified immunity is raised as an affirmative defense to liability in a § 1983 action, the court must first address the threshold issue of whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional … Schneeweis cannot overcome the defense of qualified immunity as she cannot establish that her suspension violated any clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable school official would have known or that

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Rodriguez v. The City Of New York

    District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 22, 2022

    were not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.” … established for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Lorne Battiste v. Sheriff of Broward County

    261 F. App'x 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2008

    A defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” St. George v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 8 timesUnpublished
  • Wershing v. Hinckley Township

    36 F. App'x 179 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2002

    Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, which the district court denied. Defendants now raise five issues. … Second, whether Wershing has established that the constitutional right allegedly violated was a clearly established right of which a reasonable official in the individual Defendants’ position would have known.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Lance v. Board of County Commissioners

    985 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 19, 2021

    Violation of a Clearly Established Right Although Mr. … lack of a clearly established right.

    Cited 68 timesPublished
  • Roe v. City of Milwaukee

    26 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 2, 1998

    Unless the constitutionality of the defendants’ conduct was clearly established in 1997—when they allegedly committed these acts—the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … to review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Michael W. Showers v. Steven A. Spangler

    182 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1999

    "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are `shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 27 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.