Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.00s
241 Wis. 2d 153 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2001
Cooper and Stoudt were not entitled to qualified immunity because Powell's due process claims were grounded on clearly established property and liberty interests. Id. at 19. ¶ 12. … When qualified immunity is raised as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating by closely analogous case law that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.
Cited 3 timesPublished313 F. Supp. 3d 704 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 29, 2018
Because I find this duty is not "clearly established," his claims are barred by qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity, a doctrine that protects government officials from damages lawsuits when their actions did not violate clearly established law.
Cited 10 timesPublishedMendoza v. City of West Covina
206 Cal. App. 4th 702 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2012
The qualified immunity rule shields public officers from section 1983 actions unless the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The Saucier court established a two-step procedure for determining whether a defendant’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 67 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Colorado · Aug 17, 2022
Defendant argues for dismissal of all claims on the grounds of qualified immunity, as Plaintiff fails to cite to clearly established law and cannot show that Defendant did not have reasonable suspicion. … CONCLUSION Defendant should be entitled to qualified immunity because he possessed reasonable suspicion, and Plaintiff has failed to cite to clearly established law.
Cited 0 timesUnknown819 N.W.2d 383 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 15, 2012
Accordingly, Grabe is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law for these alleged actions. 2. Whether Hester violated the clearly established constitutional rights of Minor or D.A. … Hester argues, however, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Minor and D.A. failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he violated D.A.’s clearly established constitutional right under
Cited 41 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 24, 2024
To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … “If the defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right” courts examine “whether qualified immunity is still appropriate because the defendant’s actions were objectively reasonable in light
Cited 0 timesUnknown985 S.W.2d 132 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jan 11, 1999
Woo’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity because the constitutional rights that Ta and Fisher have asserted are not clearly established. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, government officials performing discretionary
Cited 53 timesPublishedMerrilee Berge, V. Kitsap County
Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 11, 2023
RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY 1. … See also Lockner, 190 Wn.2d at 532 (“To qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was (1) open 5 No. 56865-9-II to
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSupreme Court of Iowa · May 9, 2025
Third, the plaintiff must plead “that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. … Do the people have a clearly established right, privilege, or immunity to be free from being rear-ended? T-boned? Side-swiped?
Cited 0 timesPublished4 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 1993
The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were protected by qualified immunity. … “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 would have
Cited 10 timesPublished191 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 8, 2016
Was the Right Clearly Established The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established at the time that it was violated. … Therefore, the constitutional right in question was not clearly established, and individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Utah · Nov 24, 2020
To overcome this defense, a plaintiff must establish that the officer asserting qualified immunity “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right” and that “the unlawfulness of [her] conduct was clearly established … The court must accordingly turn to whether Detective Boucher is entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that her actions were objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the
Cited 0 timesUnknown30 Kan. App. 2d 1163 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 25, 2002
established law.” … Second, was the constitutional right clearly established? See McCormick, 272 Kan. at 642 .
Cited 14 timesPublished2021 WY 47 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2021
law was clearly established and whether the defendant’s conduct was proscribed by such clearly established law without reviewing the merits of the case. … The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not “clearly established,” Harlow v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedTrellus Richmond v. Mario J. Badia
47 F.4th 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2022
Richmond further argues that Badia’s actions violated his clearly established rights, such that Badia’s qualified immunity defense fails. … “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) [Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court] case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitu- tional right; (2)
Cited 89 timesPublishedFlorida Highway Patrol, a division etc. v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, as Per. Rep. etc.
238 So. 3d 430 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 23, 2018
Reeves, 80 F.3d 1101, 1104 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Hunter established that the determination of whether qualified immunity applies to an officer’s judgment as to probable cause is one for the court, not the jury, to make”); Ansley … This appears to be the analysis undertaken by Judge Rothenberg in Pozos when she concluded that the record “clearly established” the legal question of sovereign immunity. Pozos, 42 Fla. L.
Cited 19 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Aug 1, 2020
Qualified Immunity 21 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 22 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate 17 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
Cited 0 timesUnknown114 Nev. 55 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1998
Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The pertinent inquiry in determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a Fourth Amendment violation is whether a reasonable officer could have believed his conduct lawful under the clearly established
Abrogated in part, on other grounds by Martinez v. Maruszczak, 123 Nev. 433 (2007)Cited 27 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2023
After the issue of qualified immunity is ' Defendants have each appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (See Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 34.) … .”); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to
Cited 0 timesUnknownBenner v. Saint Paul Public Schools, I.S.D. 625
District Court, D. Minnesota · May 6, 2019
Gruenewald’s Qualified Immunity Defense With respect to Principal Gruenewald – the “individual defendant” – Defendants argue that, because there is no “clearly established legal right to be free … speech in these circumstances was clearly established”).
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna