Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.12s
District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 20, 2023
For the same reason, Trebuna is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L. … Ed. 2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknown112 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 29, 1997
Because qualified immunity turns primarily on an appraisal of existing case law, oral argument has been deemed unnecessary. … But the en banc court is agreed that qualified immunity applies, and there is less consensus about the underlying constitutional issue.
Cited 54 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Colorado · Sep 23, 2019
immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
Cited 0 timesUnknownRobison v. Department of Insurance, Finanical Institutions and Professional Registration
District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 1, 2022
In a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, qualified immunity protects a government official from liability unless his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person … [174], Plaintiff has not shown he has a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right to be on the List.9 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231 (explaining qualified immunity protects a government official from
Cited 0 timesUnknown355 F.3d 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2004
Similarly, Manning is able to meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test: his constitutional due process right was “clearly established” at the time he asserts it was violated. … established at that time, Agents Buchan and Miller cannot prevail on their qualified immunity claim.
Cited 32 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 15, 2019
Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know … right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2025
immunity because releasing the Investigative Report did not violate clearly established law. … A qualified immunity analysis considers whether: “(1) . . . the official violated a statutory right or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublished436 F.3d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2006
(internal marks omitted). 16 Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under § 1983 when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The court held that the legislators, who were not the decisionmakers, were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established federal right for an individual "to prevent legislators from exercising their
Cited 30 timesPublished465 F. Supp. 2d 439 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006
The “clearly established Federal law” which governs ineffective- assistance of counsel claims is the two-pronged standard set forth in Strickland v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 363 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (stating that the “Strickland test qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court’ ”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. New York · Feb 11, 2025
Qualified Immunity Government actors may invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves from liability for civil damages “‘when [their] conduct does not violate clearly … Qualified Immunity Police Defendants then assert qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim because they contend that there is no “clearly established law
Cited 0 timesUnknownWatkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri
District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 28, 2022
The Individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their Burnikel v. … to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown467 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 27, 2006
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate because it was clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations that religious exercise may not be denied without any reason.
Abrogated on other grounds by Kravitz v. Purcell, 87 F.4th 111 (2023)Cited 1,436 timesPublishedNathaniel Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.
555 F. App'x 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 2014
Alternatively, they contend that the rights that the district court identified were not clearly established and, therefore, qualified immunity shields them. … But on a claim of qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the law was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Andrews v.
Cited 3 timesUnpublishedBlouin ex rel. Estate of Pouliot v. Spitzer
356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004
The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because “plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official “violated clearly established rights of which
Cited 45 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 20, 2022
Qualified Immunity Although qualified immunity is expansive, a government official “who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority … However, “in considering whether constitutional rights were clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes, we view the issue from ‘the layman’s perspective.’” Bland v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDeNigris v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
861 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 9, 2012
Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that Defendant Frisch is entitled to qualified immunity in her individual capacity. … Accordingly, a grant of qualified immunity is wholly inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings. *197 III.
Cited 30 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 17, 2025
Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 2013) (qualified immunity requires alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right at the time of the conduct). … Because the complaint plausibly alleges facts supporting a violation of clearly established right under the Fourteenth Amendment, Roy is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2025
Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Therefore, the Court need not assess the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Ely.
Cited 0 timesUnknown592 U.S. 43 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 10, 2020
By the time Congress enacted RFRA, this Court had interpreted the modern ver- sion of §1983 to permit monetary recovery against officials who violated “clearly established” federal law. E.g., Procu- nier v. … who flout clearly established law,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 42; see District of Co- lumbia v.
Cited 203 timesPublishedMarina P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
214 Ariz. 326 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 20, 2007
To the extent findings are not adequately supported by the record, they are clearly erroneous. Grant v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 133 Ariz. 434, 456 , 652 P.2d 507, 529 (1982). B. … prevented Mother from parenting the children that Mother has substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy. ¶30 Missing one visit and being late for two others fourteen months prior to the severance trial hardly qualifies
Cited 94 timesPublished
Ask Donna