Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
4.69s
592 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2010
Deputy Olson appeals the dis *890 trict court’s denial of qualified immunity. We reverse. I. … a constitutional right’ and (2) whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.
Cited 36 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2025
As the Supreme Court has stated, “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … The qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and, if so, “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 8, 2022
to juror to conclude that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. … However, under the present circumstances, the defendants cannot be said to have violated any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 2.
Cited 0 timesUnknown893 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 4, 1990
The district court denied Fox’s motion and granted the appellees’ cross motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they were protected by qualified immunity because Fox did not have a “clearly established” right to assistance … These reasons satisfy the flexible standard set forth in Wolff , and bars Fox’s § 1983 claim against DiLoreto under qualified immunity.
Cited 36 timesPublished901 F.2d 13 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 1990
The court also rejected the qualified immunity defense, noting, based on testing procedures deemed analogous to urinalysis, that the law was clearly established in October 1986 that the defendants’ conduct was subject to … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official
Cited 18 timesPublishedAnita Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights
858 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 2017
Qualified immunity. … Because no case clearly established the unlawfulness of the decisions made during Omar’s arrest and detention, the officers involved are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 137 timesUnpublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2023
If the law 18 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 19 based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … Willden, 26 678 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity analysis requiring (1) determining the 27 contours of the clearly established right at the time of the challenged conduct and (2) examining 1
Cited 0 timesUnknown770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985
and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.
Cited 14 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 8, 2022
qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff has pleaded a plausible violation of a right clearly established at the time of the incident, Hall is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.
Cited 0 timesUnknown544 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 2008
violated clearly established law.” … at issue — in the case of qualified immunity, whether that set of facts is “sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”
Cited 52 timesPublishedKerrin Barrett v. PAE Government Services, Inc.
975 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020
of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Because the undisputed evidence establishes that the Arlington County defendants had probable cause to detain Plaintiff, qualified immunity bars her § 1983 claim under the first prong of the qualified immunity test, and
Cited 66 timesPublished716 F.2d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1983
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that public officials whose positions entail the exercise of discretion enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability in … In order to show that a defendant exercising broad discretionary power lacked good faith, plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.
Cited 123 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2020
Haviland does not address whether his alleged constitutional harm violated a clearly established right. “[T]he burden of pleading a qualified immunity defense rests with the defendant.” Thomas v. … App’x 373, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2004) (“To the extent the Supervisory Defendants fail to address the issue [of whether a right was clearly established], therefore, their claim for qualified immunity fails ipso facto.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · May 12, 2022
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJarvis v. City of Daytona Beach
District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 23, 2024
A district court’s order denying the defense of qualified immunity is an immediately appealable order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell v. … Until the Eleventh Circuit determines whether the relevant law was clearly established, Defendants should not be subjected to trial.
Cited 0 timesUnknownGarnett v. Undercover Officer C0039
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2016
Qualified immunity is unavailable where, 22 as here, the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional 23 rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise. … In Ricciuti, the panel held that fabrication of evidence 13 violated a “clearly established constitutional right[]” and thus the officers were 14 not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 2024
Saucier, 25 533 U.S. at 202. 26 A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the 1 was clearly established such that it would … , 533 U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 6 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 7 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether
Cited 0 timesUnknown124 Fed. Cl. 256 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2015
In their sur-reply, plaintiffs put forth new and additional reasons on which they base their request for relief, which either were not clearly asserted previously or were entirely absent in their original complaint or amended … As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction over claims against the United States (1) founded on an express or implied contract with the United States,
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Idaho · Sep 19, 2019
Defendants stress that Escondido reiterated that for purposes of qualified immunity, “the clearly established right must be defined with specificity” and “repeat[ed] its holding from Kisela [v. … Defendants believe that the Court “needed to identify cases with particularized facts to show that the Defendants’ acts were clearly unlawful” to deny them qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJones v. County of Tulare, California
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2023
In other words, a “public official is entitled to qualified 9 immunity unless (1) ‘the facts . . . show that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ 10 and (2) the right at issue ‘was clearly established … Granting summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity 4 is “improper if, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established law, 5 a reasonable officer could not have believed
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna