Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.54s
District 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 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 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 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 timesPublishedMaurice Moore v. Dr. John Duffy
255 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 6, 2001
Duffy’s conduct was not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Dr. Duffy contends on appeal that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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 would have known
Cited 45 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 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 timesUnpublished230 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 timesPublishedCourt 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 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 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, 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 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 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 timesUnknown
Ask Donna