Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.37s
Treneshia 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 timesPublished405 Mass. 43 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 10, 1989
The first was common law immunity, as variously expressed in our cases, and the second was a qualified immunity patterned after Federal qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Id. at 35, 38 . … Furthermore, the Supreme Court already had established the basic two-part test for determining to what discretionary functions the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.
Cited 112 timesPublishedHenriquez v. Farmers Branch Texas
District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 8, 2021
The established procedure under which courts must address qualified immunity, once asserted, therefore “prevents a defendant entitled to immunity from being compelled to bear the costs of discovery and other pre-trial … to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown24 F.3d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 1994
qualified immunity issues. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Williams’ First Amendment claim. It was clearly established that the speech Williams cites as the reason for her demotion addressed matters of public concern.
Cited 94 timesPublished119 N.M. 690 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1995
Believing Officer Sanchez violated clearly established law, we held that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … The Act was passed prior to the genesis of the modern qualified immunity law established in Harlow.
Cited 29 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2019
Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)(“[c]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often ore difficult … For a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownJeffrey Frost & A. v. Michael Delaney & A
168 N.H. 353 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Nov 17, 2015
We begin by reviewing the doctrine of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a creature of federal law. Id. at 42. … In other words, the official is entitled to immunity unless her actions violated “legal norms clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Richardson v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDaugevelo v. County Of Sullivan
District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 22, 2020
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages when, “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … If an officer’s belief that his action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2021
He previously only raised a qualified immunity argument on that issue. … 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
Cited 0 timesUnknown151 Vt. 178 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Feb 17, 1989
So, too, we find that none of the alleged actions by the assistant attorneys general violated clearly established laws or rights, and we thus conclude that they also meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test. … In addition, their appearance violated no clearly established rights of plaintiff.
Overruled on other grounds by Muzzy v. State, 155 Vt. 279 (1990)Cited 61 timesPublished25 Neb. Ct. App. 596 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) in their individual capacities, so long as the official's conduct does not violate clearly established … Next, we consider whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
Cited 4 timesPublished752 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 20, 2014
law relating to qualified immunity.’ ” Lockridge v. … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”
Cited 231 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 2, 2024
The law is also “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity 17 if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates th[e] right” at 18 issue. Taylor v. … In other words, the correctional 16 officer was entitled to qualified immunity if there was no clearly established right to properly 17 conducted security checks.
Cited 0 timesUnknownScales v. District of Columbia
973 A.2d 722 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2009
, ultimately holding that he was entitled to immunity because the allegations, taken as true, had “fail[ed] to establish that under the particular circumstances here [Officer] Young violated his clearly established Fomth … if the right was not clearly established at the time, the officer may still enjoy its protection.
Cited 68 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2021
"Once qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right 'was clearly established at the time the challenged … Muse "has the burden of establishing" that his rights were violated under "clearly established" law in order to overcome qualified immunity. Burritt, 807 F.3d at 249.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHINDMAN v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2024
The basis for his assertion is strangely worded, but he appears to be arguing that the constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time he acted because “[t]here is no clearly established right to be free … the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Colorado · May 26, 2020
their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … Because Plaintiff has failed to establish that Plaintiff’s right to maintain his beard was clearly established under the First Amendment at the time of Defendant’s conduct, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownGarcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn
280 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 25, 2001
The Court held that Title I of the ADA, which prohibits the states, municipalities and other employers from “discri-minat[ing] against a qualified individual with a disability because of th[at] disability ... in regard to … These cases are unpersuasive because they focus exclusively on whether Congress clearly expressed its intention to condition waiver on the receipt of funds and whether the state in fact received the funds.
Cited 34 timesPublished458 P.3d 533 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2018
Comm’rs of Curry Cty., 7 2001-NMCA-065, ¶ 30, 130 N.M. 753, 31 P.3d 1027 (concluding that the 8 defendant officers were “not entitled to qualified immunity” where “the relevant 9 law was clearly established”). … We, therefore, conclude that Plaintiff has not met her burden to 10 overcome Defendant’s qualified immunity claim because she has not shown that 11 the right arguably violated was clearly established. 12 II.
Cited 2 timesPublished610 So. 2d 460 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 30, 1992
Tucker asserted a claim of qualified immunity, which shields from civil liability those governmental officials performing discretionary functions, to the extent "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The "objective reasonableness of an official's conduct" relating to the clearly established law is the proper standard, for "[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably
Cited 9 timesPublished
Ask Donna