Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.83s
SUMMERVILLE v. NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPERS JOHN DOES 1-10
District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2022
Gregory was entitled to qualified immunity for the initial stop, while holding that DSFC Ciano was entitled to qualified immunity. … The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right at issue was so clearly established that the officer should have known that he or she was committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFroemming v. City of West Allis
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 5, 2021
Qualified immunity provides government officials a shield from civil liability under § 1983 “insofar as their [discretionary] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff need not point to a case that is 4Courts may exercise “their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis should be
Cited 0 timesUnknown47 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 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 3, 2005
purported expert is qualified. … that the person rendering the opinion . . . is a qualified medical expert.”)
Cited 0 timesPublishedDr. Doe v. Board of Dental Practice
2026 ME 27 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 17, 2026
in their personal capacities are barred by qualified immunity. … The individual defendants are alternatively entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim because there was no clearly established right. [¶23] “Qualified immunity is meant to protect government officials
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. John Hardimon
700 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2012
The judge had already asked him whether he could think clearly, and he had said he could, which implies that he didn’t think his medications were affecting his ability to think clearly. … Not being a psychiatrist, the judge could not use dosage information to infer inability to think clearly.
Cited 23 timesPublished920 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 28, 1996
Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … As the foregoing analysis suggests, that issue is still not “clearly established.”
Cited 2 timesPublishedAnderson v. California Department of Correction
District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2022
Qualified Immunity 21 Defendant Ferguson argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not 22 violate Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights and because it … To determine whether an 11 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 12 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time
Cited 0 timesUnknown660 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 2, 2011
established and thus the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … We therefore do not need to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity to conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Beech. 4.
Cited 422 timesPublished402 F. App'x 285 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 2010
Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the law concerning the opening of prisoners’ legal mail outside their presence was not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBlankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, Kentucky
District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 21, 2024
clearly established at the time of the arrest.” … Mich. 2015) (holding defendant did not adequately raise qualified immunity because he “must do more than quote legal standards on what counts as clearly-established law” when “[h]e merely quote[d] standards governing the
Cited 0 timesUnknownHollis Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 7, 2024
immunity. … City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155, 1157 (8th Cir. 2013) (qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJeffrey 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 timesPublishedThomas Cress v. Carmen Palmer, Warden, Riverside Correctional Facility
484 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 2007
The district court concluded that because the Supreme Court has not clearly established that post-conviction destruction is a due process violation, the petitioner’s claim in this regard could was not cognizable on federal … Clearly, it is a burden that the petitioner in this case has not been able to carry successfully. III.
Cited 231 timesPublished151 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 timesPublished216 F. Supp. 3d 590 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2016
Citizens have a clearly established right to be free from excessive force while restrained. 57 In light of this clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity in cases where the reasonableness … Conclusion We are not aware of a clearly established right for a citizen not to be restrained while suffering a grand mal seizure. We apply qualified immunity to Mr. Guthrie’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim.
Cited 6 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 timesPublished639 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 2011
The second question is whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 202. … A plaintiff can sur- vive summary judgment on a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity only “if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without
Cited 62 timesPublishedWalker v. Clearfield County District Attorney
413 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 2011
The Supreme Court has held that when prosecutors perform investigatory functions, like determining whether there is probable cause to arrest a suspect, they are entitled only to qualified, and not absolute, immunity. … Thus, to the extent that Walker’s complaint concerns Shaw’s pre-indictment investigation of the allegations against Walker, Shaw is entitled only to qualified immunity.
Cited 26 timesUnpublished165 Idaho 611 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2019
rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” … Nevertheless, despite the need for a jury in this bifurcated process, the ultimate legal questions of clearly established rights, potential violations of those rights, and entitlement to qualified immunity must remain in
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna