Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersF

10,000+ results

0.75s

  • Jonathan Capp v. County of San Diego

    940 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2019

    clearly established. … Clearly Established Having determined that Plaintiffs plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim, we now move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether “the right at issue was ‘clearly

    Cited 175 timesPublished
  • Navarro v. Block

    250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

    After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights.... … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a § 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is “clearly established” is relevant only to qualified immunity.

    Cited 2,375 timesPublished
  • A.N. v. Alamogordo Police Department

    928 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2019

    P. 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. … In other words, “[g]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.”

    Cited 55 timesPublished
  • Jerry Nelson v. Keyvon Sellers

    89 F.4th 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2024

    clearly established law.” … Nelson’s Right Was Clearly Established. All that remains is “the clearly established prong of the qual- ified immunity inquiry.” Helm v.

    Cited 47 timesPublished
  • Karen Heeter v. Kenneth Bowers

    99 F.4th 900 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2024

    Clearly Established Law on Excessive Force The next step of the qualified immunity analysis asks us to determine whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. … This standard overlaps with our qualified immunity analysis because officers act in a “wanton or reckless” manner when they violate an individual’s clearly established constitutional rights.

    Cited 59 timesPublished
  • Wetherbe v. Texas Tech University

    138 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2025

    is qualified immunity. … However, “the ‘clearly established’ qualified immunity standard . . . . does not require that causation be clearly established,” 40 so we need not address element four.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Randall Ehlers v. Scott Dirkes

    846 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2017

    statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … A reasonable officer would not have understood the action in question to constitute excessive force.4 Thus, the law was not clearly established, and Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity. 4 Ehlers relies

    Cited 143 timesPublished
  • Todd D'Braunstein v. Chp

    131 F.4th 764 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 2025

    But I depart from the majority in its “clearly established’ prong analysis of qualified immunity. … But for qualified immunity, the Supreme Court “has repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Kisela v.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Williams v. Bitner

    455 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

    We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his “clearly established” rights. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir. 1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • Solis v. Serrett

    31 F.4th 975 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2022

    “Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “The qualified immunity inquiry includes two parts.

    Cited 60 timesPublished
  • Henry v. Purnell

    619 F.3d 323 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 24, 2010

    immunity defense based on whether the law is “clearly established” is a separate and required judicial action. 12 *337 The contours of that qualified immunity inquiry were laid out in Saucier. … Second, we have found no support for the proposition that a dissent may propound clearly established law for purposes of determining qualified immunity.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Preslie Hardwick v. Marcia Vreeken

    844 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 2017

    The panel held that defendants’ case for qualified immunity was not supported by the law or the record. … “Clearly Established” An official “cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in [his or her] shoes would have understood

    Cited 86 timesPublished
  • Anthony Gibson v. Jeffrey Kilpatrick

    773 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 2014

    was clearly established. … Qualified Immunity A.

    Cited 74 timesPublished
  • Joshua Paul English v. Officer Jonathan Fowler

    75 F.4th 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2023

    They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the claim of ex- cessive force. … that violated clearly established law.”

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Phillip Turner v. Driver

    848 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2017

    The court reasoned that Turner failed to meet his burden of showing that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because he failed to show that their actions violated any of his clearly established statutory … violates that right.” 17 Thus, the right must already be clearly established “at the time of the challenged conduct.” 18 When considering whether a defendant is entitled to *686 qualified immunity, the court “must ask whether

    Cited 226 timesPublished
  • United States v. May

    Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2005

    The district court’s factual findings are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous, but its “legal conclusions as to the existence of probable cause are reviewed de novo.” United States v. … Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 480 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Sixth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Estate of Madison Jody Jensen v. Clyde

    989 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 2, 2021

    right was clearly established at the time in question. … Jensen’s rights, those rights were not clearly established.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Breidenbach v. Bolish

    126 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 10, 1997

    Agent Gesi moved to dismiss the action on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that Agent Gesi violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. See Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v.

    Overruled on other grounds by Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (2001)Cited 87 timesPublished
  • Shaniz West v. City of Caldwell

    931 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

    Principles Governing Qualified Immunity Police officers have qualified immunity for their official conduct unless (1) they violate a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established … established case law in qualified immunity cases.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Wilkins v. City of Oakland

    350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

    This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where ‘clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers’ actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.

    Cited 163 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.