Legal Opinion
Timmins v. Toto
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 5, 2004No. 02-9206(L), 02-9208(CON)PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY ORDER
Familiarity with the facts, the procedural context, and the issues on appeal are assumed.
We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. “[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 ‘final decision’.... ” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Although the district court denied Toto’s qualified immunity claims holding material issues of fact remain, a district court’s mere assertion that disputed factual issues exist is not enough to preclude an immediate appeal.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- County of Sacramento v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Maria Salim, Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Reyes, I/o v. William ProulxCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- United States v. John WalshCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Kenneth S. Cameron v. Matthew Fogarty and John HalbigCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- McLennon v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2016
- Chillemi v. Town of SouthamptonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Fate v. CharlesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Corbett v. DwyerDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2004
- Bell v. DrakefordDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.