Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
5.74s
14 Brief Times Rptr. 608 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 14, 1990
Hogan, 292 Or. 154 , 637 P.2d 114 (1981) (orthopedic surgeons were properly qualified to testify on standard of care for podiatric surgery where foundation evidence established that orthopedic and podiatric procedure, practice … Clearly, when a proper foundation establishes that the expert witness, by reasons of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, is so substantially familiar with the standard of care applicable to the defendant
Cited 51 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021
No. 284—is needed to establish that Blankenship is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Jan. 18, 2021) (Under the clearly-established prong, “‘the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’
Cited 0 timesUnknown533 U.S. 167 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 18, 2001
V) establishes the limitation period for filing § 2254 petitions in state capital cases that arise from jurisdictions meeting the "opt-in" requirements of § 2261. … In fact, the "argument from neighbors" shows only that Congress might have spoken more clearly than it did. It cannot prove the statutory point.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 18, 2021
No. 284—is needed to establish that Blankenship is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Jan. 18, 2021) (Under the clearly-established prong, “‘the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’
Cited 0 timesUnknown522 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007
qualified immunity in which the trial court has determined that the factual dispute is “genuine”; only when denial of qualified immunity turns on whether a genuinely disputed fact is “material” are we authorized to review … unwarranted appeal of an interlocutory denial of qualified immunity.
Cited 46 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2020
Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. White v. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is 15 sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).
Cited 0 timesUnknown448 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 16, 2006
To the extent that Calderon’s denied motion rested on the ground of qualified immunity, she appealed. See Mitchell v. … In sequential order, “[w]e consider (i) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (ii) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the putative
Cited 150 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2025
“An official sued under § 1983 for an alleged constitutional violation is entitled to qualified immunity unless [the official] (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when he acted.” … So, Zebley is entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest the Arrey “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers
Cited 0 timesUnknownRoxana Santos v. Frederick County Board of Commissioners
725 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 7, 2013
established’ for purposes of qualified immunity”); see also Hope v. … established for qualified immunity purposes.”
Cited 113 timesPublishedWatkins 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 timesUnknown480 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2007
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”
Cited 58 timesPublished891 F.2d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 4, 1989
To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual's right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … clearly established.
Cited 139 timesPublishedNicholas Narducci v. Gregory Moore
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Here, because defendants argue that Narducci’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and that the violation of this right was not “clearly established,” we will consider both issues in turn. A.
Cited 0 timesPublishedKIRBY v. BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE
District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2024
To overcome qualified immunity Plaintiff must establish “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Because there are no material facts in dispute that support that Plaintiff’s clearly established rights were violated, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown464 Mich. 456 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2001
Therefore, we hold that a plaintiff is not required to provide evidence that he is at least as qualified as the successful candidate in order to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. … We caution the bench and bar not to rely on Lytle for the proposition that a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination can be established merely by providing evidence that a qualified minority candidate was rejected
Cited 311 timesPublishedSkehan v. Village of Mamaroneck
465 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2006
If those facts would constitute a deprivation, the court should grant qualified immunity if (1) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct; or (2) the defendant’ … The individual defendants’ qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission’s liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama.
Overruled on other grounds by Appel v. Spiridon, 531 F.3d 138 (2008)Cited 21 timesPublishedWoodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville
District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 27, 2025
Sucette fails to plead facts sufficient to overcome the “clearly established” prong of Zuckerman’s qualified-immunity defense. “The ‘clearly established’ prong is difficult to satisfy.” Id. at 191 (citing Morrow v. … of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown349 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2003
As discussed below, accepting the facts as the district court2 viewed them in denying qualified immunity, the police officers vio- lated clearly established federal law. … the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law."
Cited 146 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. New York · Jan 3, 2024
“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … July 2, 2020) (finding corrections officer entitled to qualified immunity because he held an objectively reasonable belief his actions were lawful, particularly in light of that fact that “there is no clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownEmma Jane Prospero v. Deputy Ryan Sullivan
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2025
“[W]hen legal questions of qualified immunity are raised—either to determine whether any constitutional right was violated or whether the violation of that right was clearly established—interlocutory … Because a defendant’s “assertion of qualified immunity can be defeated only by a showing of ‘clearly established’ law, we will review not for actual probable cause but rather for ‘arguable’ probable
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna