Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.49s
Michael Cantrell v. City of Murphy
666 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2012
“[A]n official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350. … Stated differently, Matthew’s asserted right was not clearly established on October 2, 2007. Because this putative right was not clearly established, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 66 timesPublishedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009
Qualified Immunity "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, "[ a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time
Cited 0 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2023
Qualified immunity shields “government officials perform- ing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages inso- far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for evaluating a claim of qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDevon W. Brown v. City of Atlanta
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2019
With respect to such claim, the Officers would also have qualified immunity regarding their movement of chairs, looking behind counters, and looking into refrigerators as no clearly established precedent indicates that … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (holding that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “a reasonable officer could have believed” that the search was lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedHenry H. Amsden v. Thomas F. Moran, Etc.
904 F.2d 748 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 29, 1990
Qualified immunity shields government officials wielding discretionary powers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … not necessarily entitled to prevail on the issue of qualified immunity- *752 Collins v.
Cited 302 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 24, 2022
Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct … violated clearly established law.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknown2021 S.D. 7 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2021
the constitutional right was clearly established. … was clearly established at the time.
Cited 5 timesPublishedCockrell v. Board of Regents of New Mexico State University
127 N.M. 478 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · May 7, 1999
An official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment if the right allegedly violated was not so clearly established that an objectively reasonable, similarly situated official would have known that … date of termination did not clearly establish such a right in the school principal, and therefore, the officials were entitled to their individual defense of qualified immunity from suit.
Cited 15 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 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2022
In order for a plaintiff to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a right of the plaintiff that was clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question. … App’x 533, 535 (2d Cir. 2004) (dismissing qualified immunity appeal because employee’s right to be free from racially discriminatory imposition of a probationary period was clearly established in 2004).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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 timesUnknownJeffrey 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 timesUnpublishedChavez v. Board of County Commissioners
130 N.M. 753 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2001
Merits of Qualified Immunity Issue {14} Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Law {16} Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing that in October 1995 it was clearly established that law enforcement officers
Cited 32 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 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 timesPublished105 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 22, 1997
"Even where the plaintiff's federal rights and the scope of the official's permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was 'objectively reasonable' for him … 'clearly established' at the time [the action] was taken.")
Cited 17 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 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 timesPublished61 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 timesPublished
Ask Donna