Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
3.60s
716 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 2013
In this qualified immunity case, as in all qualified immunity cases, two questions arise: whether the officers violated the Smiths’ constitutional rights, and if so whether those rights were clearly established at the time … Two appellate decisions, it is true, granted qualified immunity to officers on not- clearly-established grounds, but they each involved a fact pattern at least one prominent step removed from this one. In Malachowski v.
Cited 49 timesPublished992 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 29, 2021
Frasier’s clearly established First Amendment rights—and the district court itself said they did not—then the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … - established-law component of the qualified-immunity standard.
Cited 81 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 12, 2022
Qualified Immunity – Scully and Sugg Defendants Scully and Sugg also have pending a motion to dismiss, making various arguments including that their actions are shielded by qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting discovery should not be allowed until the court resolves the threshold question of clearly established law).
Cited 0 timesUnknown718 So. 2d 781 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 24, 1998
Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … probable cause under clearly established precedent.
Cited 24 timesPublishedPenterman v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
211 Wis. 2d 458 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1997
Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate a person's clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v. … Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established in the constitution is insufficient to justify withholding qualified immunity. Barnhill, 166 Wis. 2d at 408 .
Cited 34 timesPublished2025 Ark. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2025
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. … Under our qualified-immunity analysis, however, we agree that even if Scantlin and Ridenhour have asserted a violation of a clearly established right under the Act, they have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to
Cited 3 timesPublished693 So. 2d 586 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 20, 1997
The trial court should have sustained Commissioner Junior's claim of qualified immunity, however, because the conduct forming the basis of the complaint by the Reeds does not amount to a violation of a clearly established … To qualify as a "clearly established" right as that phrase is used in Harlow v.
Cited 7 timesPublished20 Brief Times Rptr. 981 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 24, 1996
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity to appeal a district court’s denial of summary judgment on that defense if the issue on appeal is whether the constitutional right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”
Cited 51 timesPublished399 Pa. Super. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1990
Appellant’s second issue relates to the expert testimony offered by the Commonwealth to establish that the drugs possessed by appellant were for delivery to others, rather than for personal use. … If accepted by the jury, as it clearly was, it provided an adequate basis upon which to conclude that the Commonwealth proved the intent to deliver element of the crime charged. Commonwealth v.
Cited 18 timesPublished523 F. App'x 515 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013
To defeat a defense of qualified immunity on summary judgment, however, the plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a constitutional right which was clearly established. … The district court held that because there is no clearly established law indicating that the delay in Mr. Collvins’ hearing was unconstitutional, he was entitled to qualified immunity. Again, we agree.
Cited 6 timesUnpublishedSmith v. Washtenaw Intermediate School District
District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 24, 2020
Qualified immunity will apply when the injury Plaintiff alleges is taken by the collective action of Defendants, not individual defendants. See Humphrey v. … Mabry, 482 F.3d 840, 847 (6th Cir. 2007) (individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity even when they collectively had sufficient knowledge to figure out that they were violating the plaintiff’s clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownJohn Dobosz v. Joseph A. Walsh
892 F.2d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 28, 1989
We believe that with regard to the due process claim relating to the suspension, Walsh did not violate any clearly established law. … Walsh is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim.
Cited 50 timesPublished132 N.C. App. 556 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1999
, and qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity.
Cited 47 timesPublished526 N.W.2d 209 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 14, 1995
Normally, evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have … Qualified immunity ⅜ * * establishes a right not to be tried. When rules of law clearly establish public officials’ duty, the immunity defense is unavailable.
Cited 6 timesPublishedCherry Knoll, L.L.C. v. HDR Engineering, Incorpora
922 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2019
In response, Jones moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable
Cited 53 timesPublished47 F.4th 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022
clearly established. … In concluding that Officer Arnett did not violate clearly established law on an incomplete view of the relevant facts, the majority’s approach diverges from the one established by qualified immunity precedent in this circuit
Cited 52 timesPublished912 P.2d 1136 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1996
Qualified immunity is, of course, an affirmative defense; but once it is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the federal rights allegedly impaired by the defendant were clearly established at the time the … CONCLUSION Since Garcia failed to demonstrate that Lawson violated a clearly established federal right, Lawson is entitled to invoke the defense of qualified immunity.
Cited 4 timesPublishedAna Sandoval v. County of San Diego
985 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 13, 2021
Because we reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity based on the objective elements of clearly established law, we expressly declined to consider, for qualified immunity purposes, how the subjective elements … As the court explained, “we assess qualified immunity based on the law that was ‘clearly established at the time an action occurred,’” and at the time of the shooting in Kedra, “it was not yet clearly established whether
Cited 386 timesPublished2026 Ark. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 4, 2026
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 … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
Cited 2 timesPublishedTreneshia Dukes v. Nicholas Deaton
852 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 2017
Qualified immunity also protects Branham because his subordinate’s constitutional violation was not clearly established. A. Deaton is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … Branham is entitled to qualified immunity because Deaton’s conduct was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Cited 95 timesPublished
Ask Donna