Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1895

10,000+ results

2.93s

  • Stephens v. City of Akron

    729 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2010

    Clearly Established Inquiry The law clearly establishes that an officer may not use deadly force to seize an unarmed suspect. … on the issue of qualified immunity.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • James Cameron v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General

    983 F.2d 253 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 1993

    the defendants therefore had qualified immunity from suit. … protected by qualified immunity.

    Cited 285 timesPublished
  • Dunn v. Village of Put-In-Bay

    291 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2003

    was clearly established at the time that the injury occurred. … The Village and Township, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. E.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Wilkerson v. Stalder

    329 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2003

    The court must engage in a two-step analysis to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. … First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

    Cited 79 timesPublished
  • Taylor Ex Rel. Estate of Mason v. Adams

    221 F.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

    her qualified immunity. … See, e.g., Layne, 119 S.Ct. at 1695 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity despite their unconstitutional conduct because of the lack of clearly established, preexisting law governing that conduct).

    Cited 308 timesPublished
  • Jensen v. Lane County

    222 F.3d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2000

    Robbins violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Robbins’ determination that probable cause existed to sign the certificate was reasonable under the circumstances and he did not violate clearly established law.”

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Heap v. Carter

    112 F. Supp. 3d 402 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 1, 2015

    Qualified immunity is available where a govérnment official performing discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory-or constitutional rights of which a- reasonable person would have known.” … and if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Arlen Yalkut v. Augie Gemignani and Myron Gold

    873 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 18, 1989

    ), from which defendants claim qualified immunity. … Because Yalkut’s complaint alleges no actions by defendants that violated a clearly established constitutional right to due process, defendants are immune from suit.

    Cited 41 timesPublished
  • State v. Keller-Bee

    224 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

    As will be discussed in detail infra, Maryland Courts have clearly established that a judge is immune from tort liability for judicial acts. … The Court continued: The determination of [w]hether a function qualifies for absolute immunity is made objectively and not subjectively.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Powers v. Northside Independent School District

    143 F. Supp. 3d 545 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 29, 2015

    that Woods’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against Woods must nevertheless be dismissed because Woods is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct. The Court agrees.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Norfleet v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

    796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

    Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Billie M. Ireland v. Gary L. Tunis, Richard Thompson, John Meiers, and Richard D. Kuhn

    113 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1997

    Accordingly, because Meiers’s actions in swearing to the complaint were objectively reasonable and violated no clearly established law, we hold that Meiers is entitled to qualified immunity under the Malley formulation. … immunity because his involvement was objectively reasonable and violated no clearly established law.

    Cited 184 timesPublished
  • Aspinwall v. Herrin

    879 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 27, 1994

    Herrin is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claim because it was not clearly established in January of 1993 that a Georgia sheriff was bound by a county merit system. … Under the objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that Herrin’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Suarez v. Derosier

    241 So. 3d 1086 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2018

    DeRosier submitted affidavits of his employees in support of absolute immunity. Prosecutors may have absolute immunity or qualified immunity depending upon their actions. … The trial court clearly noted absolute immunity was at issue and found that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. However, Defense counsel's failure to provide discovery, claiming immunity applied, prevented Mr.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Love v. Harlem Irrigation District

    245 Mont. 443 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1990

    The Irrigation District is clearly a “governmental entity” within the meaning of § 2-9-111, MCA. … Harlem Irrigation District is clearly a governmental entity immune from suit under these definitions. *447 Under § 2-9-111(3), MCA, the commissioners individually are immune as members of a legislative body who are immune

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Taylor v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human resources

    237 W. Va. 549 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2016

    Therefore, to the extent that petitioners have established sufficient evidence that the challenged employment actions were a violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of which a reasonable … ’ claims are not barred by qualified immunity.

    Cited 28 timesPublished
  • Diane M. Wilson v. Ugo Formigoni, Carlos Deeb and Bruce Wilosinski

    42 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 14, 1994

    The court found, however, that it was not clearly established that Youngberg applied to those voluntary patients who were in reality committed involuntarily. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

    Cited 48 timesPublished
  • Jones v. Chandrasuwan

    76 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 2014

    When subject to suit under § 1983, state and local officials may assert qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Finding that this right is not clearly established, this court determines that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, even if there was some sort of constitutional violation.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Cox v. Roskelley

    359 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2004

    The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, without making any qualified immunity argument. … The second summary judgment motion asserted, for the first time, a qualified immunity defense.

    Cited 49 timesPublished
  • Mossey v. City of Galveston, Tex.

    94 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 25, 2000

    Plaintiff’s Claim of Unlawful Arrest Is Barred by Qualified Immunity An individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. See Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1992). … Plaintiff’s Claim of Excessive Force Is Not Barred by Qualified Immunity Established law clearly provides that Plaintiff has a Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force by police.

    Cited 4 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.