Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
3.99s
311 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 31, 2004
The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … reasonable in light of clearly established law.
Cited 34 timesPublishedPastore v. Catron County Sheriff's Office
District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 17, 2021
Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability as long as they do not “‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Regarding the clearly established law prong of a qualified immunity test, courts must not define the relevant constitutional right “at a high level of generality.” White v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFambrough v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2025
“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Although Smedley was not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, the record before the Court on summary judgment establishes he is entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown94 F.4th 136 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 21, 2024
The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on qualified immunity after determining that, at the relevant time, clearly established law did not treat such prolonged solitary … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time.
Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2023
Qualified immunity protects officers when the law underlying the alleged violations is not clearly established. … Accordingly, the relevant right was not clearly established and Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFye v. Oklahoma Corp. Commission
175 F. App'x 207 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 6, 2006
When a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct violated a federal constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established at the time … Bode’s complete inaction in the face of actual knowledge, if proven, violated a constitutional right that was, at the time, clearly established, and she is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 2 timesUnpublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2023
"A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Stefanov has failed to establish that the constitutional right that he claims was violated was clearly established, Officer McIntyre is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownEstate of Richard Ward v. Lucero
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 10, 2026
was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s violative conduct.” … whether that law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”
Cited 0 timesPublished167 F.3d 995 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 1999
Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Y. … In rejecting Coarsey’s qualified immunity claim, the district court determined that ”[s]oIici-tation of false testimony for use in prosecuting an individual violates clearly established constitutional rights.”
Cited 97 timesPublished590 F. App'x 566 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2014
To pierce the qualified immunity shield, McNeal must show (1) that Kott and LaLonde violated his constitutional rights and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time. See Leary, 528 F.3d at 441 . … Because McNeal cannot identify a violation of any “clearly established” right, Kott and LaLonde deserve qualified immunity.
Cited 11 timesUnpublishedKennedy v. City of Villa Hills, Ky.
635 F.3d 210 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 2011
In the context of qualified immunity, preexisting, clearly established law refers to “binding precedent from the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit, the district court itself, or other circuits that is directly on point.” … To defeat Schutzman’s qualified- immunity defense, Kennedy must also demonstrate that his right to be free from retaliatory arrest in such a context was clearly established.
Cited 80 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 18, 1993
The district court entered __________ an injunction ordering the Company to reinstate her, and it denied the individual defendants' claims of "qualified immunity." … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 638-41 ___ ________ _________ (1987) (state actors have qualified immunity unless -8- 8 precedent would have alerted reasonable person that action would infringe "clearly established" constitutional
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 3, 2026
Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability “for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, Plaintiff also must show that the right allegedly violated by Commissioner Hamm was clearly established to overcome qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownThe Estate of Roosevelt Holliman v. Turner
District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Feb 10, 2023
constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Once qualified immunity has been “raised as a defense by a defendant, … the plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the proof and arguments necessary to overcome it.” Strickland v. City of Crenshaw, 114 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknown86 F.3d 1438 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 18, 1996
P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Wilson’s complaint failed to state a claim because, among other things, Brown, Moore, and Wells were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity and Kelkhoff was entitled to qualified immunity. … The question of whether a particular constitutional right is clearly established is reviewed de novo. Maltby v. Winston, 36 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 2576 , 132 L.Ed.2d 827 (1995).
Cited 68 timesPublished496 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 1, 2007
Only if the answer to the first question is yes must a court proceed to the inquiry for qualified immunity: Was the right at issue clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions? … If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant.
Cited 424 timesPublishedOrona v. Board of Commissioners for Bernalillo County
District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 21, 2020
Constitutional Violation was Not Clearly Established. Alternatively, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. … Here, Defendant Sena-Henderson asserted qualified immunity and specifically the clearly established prong.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Maryland · Jul 17, 2025
Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that if Plaintiff has stated a viable claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time … established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown290 F.3d 965 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 2002
The officials defended on grounds of qualified immunity, arguing that until the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court decision in Crofton , the law with respect to the “no gift publication” policy was not “clearly established … The law would be clearly established and defendants’ qualified immunity defense would fail.
Cited 281 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 2025
denied qualified immunity because it was clearly established— as of 1987—that prosecutors violate the Constitution when they fabricate evidence introduced at trial. 682 F.3d at 585–86 (emphasis added); see also Smith v. … clearly establish the right).
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna