TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law
5 cases · terms & connectors · 0.05 s
  1. 5 N. Mar. I. 188 Sup. Ct. of the Comm. of the N. Mariana Islands November 27, 1998 Nos. 97-023 & 97-027 (consolidated); Civil Action No. 95-1106

    The members of the Board of Elections, acting in their individual capacities, asserted qualified immunity. 7 The court held that “the procedure for resolving voter challenges was not ‘clearly established’ at the time the Board attempted

    immunity because the process for disqualifying voters was not sufficiently or clearly established at the time the hearings were held.

    Accordingly, the Court finds that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

  2. 4 Am. Samoa 3d 219 High Court of American Samoa August 10, 2000 No. CA No. 108-99
    Not cited

    Additionally, we deny Hunkin’s motion, under the authority granted us by either T.C.R.C.P. 7(a) or 12(e), seeking an order directing Fa'amuli to state with specificity the clearly established law of which Hunkin should have been aware

    for purposes of resolving the qualified immunity question.

  3. Superior Court of Guam June 3, 2024 No. CV0429-21
    Not cited

    ''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 of which a reasonable person would

    If the answer is no, the analysis ends, with qualified immunity protecting the defendant from liability.

    The Court need not further inquire whether the right was clearly established. Adkins, 2010 WL 3385176 , at *9. 5.

  4. 24 V.I. 254 Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands September 11, 1989 No. Civil No. 798/1988
    Not cited

    The defendants contend that a police officer enjoys qualified immunity from liability for false imprisonment. 3 Just as surely as *260 the doctrine exists, it manifestly does not apply in this case. In Harlow v.

    Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982), the Supreme Court held: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

    The defense of' qualified immunity thus is defeated if the official “‘knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff

  5. Superior Court of Guam May 27, 2021 No. CV0733-20
    Not cited

    Elliot, 706 F.2d 809 , 811 (7th Cir. 1983). 10 Further, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from 11 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 12 statutory

    Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability 15 . . . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 16 457 U.S. 511 , 526 (1985).

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list