Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.76s
172 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 timesPublished845 P.2d 346 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1992
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court took up the question of what constitutes a “clearly established legal rule” for purposes of qualified immunity: The operation of … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.
Cited 25 timesPublishedRobert Harper v. County of Delaware
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 12, 2019
And for qualified immunity purposes, 3 The individual defendants argued below that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The Municipal Defendants Our conclusion that the right Harper claims was not clearly established does not resolve his claims against the municipal defendants, which cannot assert a qualified immunity defense to
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJeffrey L. Poulakis v. Michael Rogers
341 F. App'x 523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2009
This Court has said clearly, consistently, and on numerous occasions that we may only consider the precedent of these courts in determining whether the case law has “clearly established” a right for qualified immunity purposes … establish qualified immunity.”
Cited 25 timesUnpublishedDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 25, 2023
Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), a qualified immunity case involving allegations of the excessive use of force in restraining an unruly crowd of demonstrators protesting an appearance by the Vice President, the Supreme Court … Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity where plaintiff could point to nothing ambit of reasonableness).
Cited 0 timesUnknownBoard of Regents of State v. Snyder
826 So. 2d 382 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 19, 2002
Qualified immunity protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability and suit for civil damages *390 unless their conduct violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights. … Thus, qualified immunity in this case hinges upon whether Mr. Snyder's First Amendment right was clearly established.
Cited 58 timesPublished623 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 2010
Luchtel has not shown that the use of the officers’ bodies and handcuffs in the manner deployed violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 . … A reasonable police officer could properly believe that the use of this level of force would not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See Jackson, 268 F.3d at 653 n. 5; see also Malley v.
Cited 100 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 30, 2020
“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established in 2016 for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See, e.g., Radvansky v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownNiewolak v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MI
District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 19, 2022
With respect to qualified immunity, as to the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he law is clear in this Circuit regarding the prohibition against excessively forceful handcuffing.” Baynes v. … City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001) (the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes).
Cited 0 timesUnknown273 Neb. 977 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2007
Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual capacity, so long as an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … workers. 32 Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 33 An official sued
Cited 22 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018
that right was clearly established at the time of the employee’s firing.” … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, “[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018
that right was clearly established at the time of the employee’s firing.” … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, “[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing
Cited 0 timesUnknown195 W. Va. 272 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1995
The one difference in immunity cases is that the official’s act must be shown to have violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Refoim Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which
Cited 75 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018
that right was clearly established at the time of the employee’s firing.” … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, “[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing
Cited 0 timesUnknown808 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 9, 2015
Qualified immunity shields a public official from damage liability unless the official’s actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … violation was clearly established at the time in question, what was known to a person who might be shielded by qualified immunity, and the reasonableness of defendant’s actions.
Cited 320 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018
that right was clearly established at the time of the employee’s firing.” … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, “[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018
that right was clearly established at the time of the employee’s firing.” … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, “[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing
Cited 0 timesUnknownMills v. Cole Do Not File in this Case - Case Consolidated, file in Case No. 18-CV-03241-SRB .
District Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018
Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, “[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … ] was not entitled to qualified immunity”), and Nord, 757 F.3d at 744 (because government’s interests outweighed the deputy sheriff’s under Pickering-Connick, county sheriff’s “actions did not violate a clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknown61 O.B.A.J. 1633 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1990
The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The petitioners are immune from suit unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra.
Cited 47 timesPublishedJames Schoonover v. Clay County Sheriff's Dept.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 15, 2023
To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we must examine, in either order: “(1) whether a constitutional violation occurred; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at … qualified immunity.”).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna