Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1788

10,000+ results

7.82s

  • EVANS

    District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2026

    right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Jazmine Bryant v. Bill Hensley

    Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

    In Hunter and Payne’s view, that response failed to argue that qualified immunity did not apply to them. True, Bryant’s estate bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply. See Blake v. … Edmonson County, 18 F.4th 516, 530 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that the defendant acted in bad faith and was “not eligible for state qualified immunity” under Kentucky law because he violated the plaintiff’s “clearly established

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Tashonda Troupe v. St. Louis County, Missouri

    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 11, 2025

    “A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Davis v. Buchanan Cnty., 11 F.4th 604, 623 (8th Cir. 2021). … “Qualified immunity is ‘appropriate where no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the facts when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • McCollum v. Drewitz

    District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 3, 2022

    qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … immunity” because the law at the time did not clearly establish that his doing so violated McCollum’s rights.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Pritzker v. City of Hudson

    26 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 30, 1998

    Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that, even if plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Even where a right is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity nevertheless if ‘it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate th[at] right[ ].’ ”

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Morales v. Chadbourne

    793 F.3d 208 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

    Donaghy argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment claim because the law was not clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent was required to have probable cause before issuing a detainer … For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment claim against Donaghy on the ground that the law was clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent

    Cited 53 timesPublished
  • Deputy J.K. Maston v. Thomas Jefferson Wagner

    236 W. Va. 488 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2015

    the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.”).9 A public officer is entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts, even if committed negligently … A litigant may pierce the shield of qualified immunity by showing that a government official has violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

    Cited 50 timesPublished
  • Jamal Murray v. State of Ohio Dep't of Corrections

    29 F.4th 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2022

    motion is based on a claim of qualified immunity.” … Heyd is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law We now consider the merits of the qualified-immunity defense.

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Vinzant v. King

    464 U.S. 965 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 7, 1983

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development

    445 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2006

    “The [appellant] must clearly and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy these Art. Ill standing requirements. … “It is well-established that one panel of our court will not overturn another absent an intervening precedent by our court sitting en banc or a Supreme Court precedent.” FDIC v.

    Vacated in part, on other grounds by United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development, 493 F.3d 469 (2007)Cited 78 timesPublished
  • Ortiz v. Mora

    District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 10, 2019

    However, Mora violated no clearly established law and therefore is entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also holds that Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Boyd v. City of Warren

    District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2020

    App’x 384, 388 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Because our cases clearly established Lawler’s right to be free from gratuitous force during booking, the district court properly denied Toro qualified immunity.” … In contrast to qualified immunity, this inquiry is subjective. See id. But McCabe and Masserang not only have the initial burden on summary judgment, they also have the burden of establishing governmental immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Lewis v. City of Burnsville

    District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 31, 2019

    Therefore, at minimum, Frascone has qualified immunity. See Brown v. … City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 496 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff most show both the existence of a right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Robinson v. Beaumont

    291 Ark. 477 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 16, 1987

    This immunity is guaranteed so long as the actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the complaint fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law the defense of qualified immunity is appropriate and the suit should not be allowed to proceed.

    Cited 55 timesPublished
  • Lewis v. Tripp

    604 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 17, 2010

    Lewis’s clearly established rights. … Lewis hasn’t demonstrated a constitutional violation, let alone a clearly established one.

    Cited 160 timesPublished
  • Turkmen v. Ashcroft

    915 F. Supp. 2d 314 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 15, 2013

    Qualified Immunity The allegations against the MDC defendants state a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also suggest that they are entitled to qualified immunity because in 2001 it was not clearly established that Section 1985 applied to federal officials.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Bisetti v. City Of Austin

    District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2022

    The qualified-immunity framework The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established … Thus, in determining qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-step analysis: (1) was a statutory or constitutional right violated on the facts alleged; and (2) did the officer’s actions violate clearly established

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Blackwell v. Barton

    34 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1994

    The first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. … Qualified Immunity Barton is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct. Pfannstiel, 918 F.2d at 1183.

    Cited 114 timesPublished
  • McCary

    District Court, D. Delaware · Nov 24, 2025

    Plaintiffs do not claim any Eighth Amendment issue in their complaint, however, and even if they had, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged verbal threats, given the existence of a number of … Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62-63 (2018) (noting that “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983” unless they violate a constitutional right established by a “settled law” that has been “dictated by controlling authority

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Tate v. United States

    72 F. App'x 265 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 8, 2003

    The putative next friend must clearly establish “the propriety of his status” in order to “justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164 . … Cockrell and Young did not satisfy the requirements to qualify for next Mend status.

    Cited 18 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.