Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.51s
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 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 timesUnknownCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 2019
The district court granted summary judgment to the officials based on qualified immunity, holding that the threat of criminal prosecution wasn’t “other legal process” under clearly established law. Reed appealed. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’
Cited 0 timesPublished808 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 timesPublishedBrent Jacoby v. Baldwin County
835 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2016
“In this [C]ircuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … And Magluta looked to Hewitt to determine whether the liberty interest was clearly established for the purposes of the defendants’ qualified-immunity claim. See id. at 1283–84.
Cited 106 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, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2023
Thus, the court may forego difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant … “If neither source provides relevant caselaw, we consider whether ‘a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.’ Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 27, 2025
Defendants bear of the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Outlaw v. … The defendants have not met their burden of establishing qualified immunity at the pleadings stage.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 13, 2019
See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); Hines v. … Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2019) (existing Valley Fever cases did not clearly establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores”).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 17, 2020
This would cloak Combs in qualified immunity. See Phillips, 786 F. … See, e.g., DE 55-1 at 16–18, 21–22.21 However, the Sixth Circuit has explicitly held that “freedom from excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing is a clearly established right for purposes of qualified immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownGeneris Ent., LLC v. Mary Anne Donley
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2026
Trooper Bitner moved to dismiss Generis’ complaint, arguing, in relevant part, that qualified immunity shielded him from suit because the liquor inspection search was not pretextual and no clearly established law placed … The district denied Trooper Bitner’s demand for qualified immunity, 3 finding that Generis had plausibly alleged a pretextual use of inspection authority for criminal investigation and that this violated clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnpublished427 S.W.3d 682 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 23, 2013
right is clearly established, and (3) raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … that his conduct violated that clearly established right.
Cited 11 timesPublished363 Ark. 126 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2005
Under that analysis, 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, … qualified immunity under Ark.
Cited 30 timesPublished162 B.R. 51 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 29, 1993
That rule provides that “[findings of fact ... shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” B.R. 8013. This Court will review determinations of law de novo. A. … In Davenport , the Supreme Court indicated that the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code “reflects Congress’ broad rather than restrictive view of the class of obligations that qualify as a ‘claim’ giving rise to a
Cited 14 timesPublished360 F. Supp. 3d 1112 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018
Qualified Immunity The parties also dispute whether Chief Batiste is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages. 3 ECF No. 35 at 9; ECF No. 56 at 14. … The Court begins by assessing whether the right that Chief Batiste is alleged to have violated is clearly established. *1124 A right from a federal statute or the constitution is clearly established when a reasonable official
Cited 9 timesPublishedJoseph Walton, as Next Friend of Christopher Walton, a Minor v. Alma Alexander, Alma Alexander
20 F.3d 1350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994
State officials are protected by qualified immunity for alleged constitutional torts if their conduct does not violate clearly established law effective at the time of the alleged tort. Harlow v. … Therefore, the first step in examining a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is to determine whether the plaintiff has “al-leg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.
Cited 31 timesPublishedBoyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville
711 S.W.3d 280 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2025
“A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised a genuine … 21 would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2018
A defendant is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … Hughes, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (holding that qualified immunity protected a police officer in a Fourth Amendment context because the officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established law) (quotations omitted).
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna