Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
5.16s
Cockrell 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 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021
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 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, 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 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 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 timesPublished938 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2013
“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 … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269 .
Cited 14 timesPublishedDevon 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 timesUnpublishedCunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.
487 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024
Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.
Cited 1 timesPublishedHenry 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 timesPublished273 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 timesPublished230 Conn. 735 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 9, 1994
Furthermore, “[e]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was objectively reasonable for … view that the clearly established law prong was dispositive of the qualified immunity defense.
Cited 74 timesPublishedCorum v. University of North Carolina Ex Rel. Board of Governors
97 N.C. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1990
Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … Further, the qualified immunity argument turns on the issue of whether “clearly established law” has been violated. Harlow, supra. In accord with Mitchell v.
Reversed in part, on other grounds by Corum v. University of North Carolina, 330 N.C. 761 (1992)Cited 28 timesPublished284 F. App'x 279 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2008
a violation of clearly established law.” … When constitutional violations are not clearly established, state officials are entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
Cited 31 timesUnpublishedCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2009
was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … The district court denied defendant-appellants qualified immunity. A detainee’s right to medical treatment is clearly established. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 23, 2024
Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action 1 Thomas … be granted to the defendant on the basis of qualified immunity.”).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDistrict 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 timesPublished
Ask Donna