Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.54s
District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 3, 2021
“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.” … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12-14 (2015) (reversing denial of qualified immunity because circuit court considered it clearly established that police officer may not “use deadly force against a fleeing felon who d[id] not pose
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 2, 2020
Defendants further contend that Deputy Mendoza is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Burn’s clearly-established rights. … Therefore, Mendoza is entitled to summary judgment based upon the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 28, 2020
Ct. 1148, 1153 (2018) (reversing denial of qualified immunity)), amended in part, No. 3:18-CV-609-DPJ-LRA, 2019 WL 3806641 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 13, 2019), aff’d, 974 F.3d 594 (5th Cir. 2020). … Ct. at 1153 (reversing denial of qualified immunity where facts did not fit clearly established law). The 2020 autopsy report and expert report do not “clearly” change that result either.
Cited 0 timesUnknown350 Ark. 114 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 26, 2002
Qualified Immunity A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and … Thus, an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge. Virden v.
Cited 22 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 14, 2026
When it comes to qualified immunity, “[a] prison official is immune from suit if the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the violation, and thus a reasonable officer would not have known … The right to be protected from inmate-on-inmate violence was clearly established at the time of the complained-of events and has been clearly established for decades. See, e.g., Mayoral v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown492 F.3d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2007
A judicial pronouncement that an ordinance is consistent with common sense hardly establishes that it is so. B. … The district court, in its order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, determined that Chief Fruchey was entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 42 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 24, 2020
Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … immunity”); Clash, 77 F.3d at 1048 (denying summary judgment on qualified immunity claim because the Court lacked the “given facts” that either do or do not show a violation of “clearly established law”); Pabon v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownPeople of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle
498 Mich. 192 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2015
not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … required to establish immunity.
Cited 105 timesPublishedDorothy King v. Virginia Betts
354 S.W.3d 691 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2011
medications violated a clearly established right. … an otherwise clearly established law). .
Cited 29 timesPublished65 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 12, 1995
established' for qualified immunity purposes." … They do broadly assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the right "allegedly violated" was not "clearly established." Appellants' Brief at 20 (emphasis added).
Cited 0 timesPublished172 Wash. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013
Accordingly, because the particularized right at issue was not “clearly established,” the trial court correctly ruled that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim. … In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we must bear in mind that *629 courts “undermine the values qualified immunity seeks to promote . .. when what is not clearly established is held to be so.” al-Kidd, 131 S.
Cited 10 timesPublishedVictoria Cunningham v. Dep't of Children's Servs.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2021
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 rights of which a reasonable person … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDistrict Court, D. Colorado · Sep 13, 2021
Oba is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.4 See Medina v. … to show law was clearly established); cf.
Cited 0 timesUnknown711 F.3d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 2013
To accomplish this goal, the ADA requires that 13 employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified 14 individuals. See id. § 12112(b)(5). … This burden is not heavy: “It is enough for the plaintiff 21 to suggest the existence of a plausible accommodation, the costs of 22 which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.”
Cited 334 timesPublished304 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2002
However, under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Sonnleitner has failed to establish that this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Sonn-leitner has failed to carry his burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right to a pre-de-motion hearing as to
Cited 81 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Delaware · Dec 17, 2021
With respect to qualified immunity, “[u]nless 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 … To show that a right is “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of case law that places the statutory or constitutional question at issue beyond debate
Cited 0 timesUnknownCassidy Jared Loch v. City of Litchfield
689 F.3d 961 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 27, 2012
Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established
Cited 104 timesPublishedJason Moorhead v. West Virginia Army National Guard and West Virginia Mountaineer Challenge Academy
West Virginia Supreme Court · May 2, 2025
Clearly Established Rights or Laws Petitioner alleges that three different clearly established laws or rights were violated by the cadre that should strip Respondents of qualified immunity: (1) MCA’s safety … established rights or laws, we find none that strip Respondents of qualified immunity on these facts.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Idaho · Dec 20, 2023
violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless a plaintiff proves: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time
Cited 0 timesUnknownPensacola Christian College v. Bruhn
80 So. 3d 1046 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 30, 2011
Toyota Distribs., LLC., 60 So.3d 1155, 1157-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“A special employer qualifies as such where ‘(1) there was a contract for hire, either express or implied, between the special employer and the employee; … Hecht Invs., Ltd., 924 So.2d 944, 945-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that W-2 tax forms alone did not establish an employment relationship). Rather, as this court stated in Hoar Construction v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna