Sabia v. Neville

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendants were not protected by qualified immunity as a matter of law where “a fact-finder could conclude that defendants violated their statutory duties’
• “Good faith exists where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.”
• because fact finder could conclude that defendants violated statutory duties that were clear and mandatory, it is error to find as a matter of law that defendants were protected by qualified immunity
• “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, it is not appropriate for [Supreme Court] to resolve disputed issues of fact or questions of credibility.”
• summary judgment not proper when existence of factual dispute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).