Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1917

10,000+ results

7.94s

  • Allen v. Guerrero

    276 Wis. 2d 679 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 16, 2004

    given right was clearly established." … clearly established.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Anderson v. City of Hopkins

    400 N.W.2d 350 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 10, 1987

    This appeal is from an order denying summary judgment and rejecting appellants’ qualified immunity defense. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Caprita v. Dunaway

    District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 12, 2024

    “To show that the official violated a ‘clearly established’ right, the plaintiff must ‘define with specificity the clearly established legal rule that the officers allegedly violated.’” Paul v. Whitley Cnty. Det. … In response to Defendant’s claim to qualified immunity, Plaintiff cites no case law that would tend to show Dunaway violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to not be handcuffed like he was.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Erika Mabes v. Shannon Thompson

    136 F.4th 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

    Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Emmons v. City of Escondido

    168 F. Supp. 3d 1265 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2016

    Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court recently summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity. … conduct is clearly established.”

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Sabia v. Neville

    165 Vt. 515 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Oct 18, 1996

    They also argued that their actions were protected by qualified immunity. … Based on an objective standard, defendants did not violate any clearly established rights of plaintiff.

    Cited 41 timesPublished
  • Jeffrey Mannoia v. David G. Farrow, Detective

    476 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

    In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-part test for resolving the issue of qualified immunity. … “Consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity ... but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.” Kijonka v. Seitzinger, 363 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir.2004).

    Cited 49 timesPublished
  • Commonwealth v. Markun

    185 A.3d 1026 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2018

    As described by the United States Supreme Court: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Pearson’s description of qualified immunity as providing immunity from suit, rather than a mere defense to liability, describes this situation.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Yates v. Stalder

    217 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2000

    immunity grounds, claiming that his conduct did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Equal Protection The first step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a “violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Hare v.

    Cited 54 timesPublished
  • Clue v. Johnson

    179 F.3d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1999

    “The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … Instead, they contend that their activities raise a public concern under clearly established law and that Johnson is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See infra.

    Cited 38 timesPublished
  • Geraldine Nicholson v. Miguel Gutierrez

    935 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2019

    Once a defendant has raised qualified immunity as a defense to a claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” … Even if a constitutional violation occurred, qualified immunity nevertheless applies unless the violation was clearly established.

    Cited 116 timesPublished
  • Linda J. Clifford v. MaineGeneral Medical Center

    91 A.3d 567 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 22, 2014

    of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that their specific actions … Lyons, 666 A.2d at 99; see Webb, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 8, 728 A.2d 1261 (stating that qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under section 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Salazar v. Molina

    37 F.4th 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

    Qualified immunity allows law enforcement officers to avoid personal liability and the burdens of defending suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. … “Because nonprecedential opinions do not establish any binding law for the circuit, they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.” Marks v.

    Cited 58 timesPublished
  • Dickerson v. McClellan

    844 F. Supp. 391 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Feb 17, 1994

    The appropriate standard is taken to be whether disputes clearly exist with regard to material facts on which the qualified immunity defense is based or whether, on the undisputed facts, qualified immunity is clearly unjustified … In such a case, granting summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is clearly inappropriate.

    Vacated in part by Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251 (1994)Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Desiree Martinez v. Channon High

    91 F.4th 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 26, 2024

    The panel nevertheless held that Officer High was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2013 that Officer High’s conduct violated Martinez’s substantive due process rights. … based on the lack of any clearly established law.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Youngstown v. Carrier Servs. Group, Inc.

    2026 Ohio 1032 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2026

    qualified immunity claim. … .): Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Rufus West v. Gregory Grams

    607 F. App'x 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 2015

    immunity. … It has never been clearly established that inmates have a right to inmate-led group worship under the First Amendment.

    Cited 29 timesUnpublished
  • STERLING HOTELS, LLC v. MCKAY

    District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 11, 2025

    The Sixth Circuit panel went on to hold that Plaintiff overcame Defendant’s qualified immunity defense, because it is clearly established that an individual must have a hearing before being deprived of a significant … Violation of Clearly Established Constitutional Rights Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Tucker v. City of Shreveport

    998 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2021

    The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. … This is true “even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the [qualified immunity] standard.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014).

    Cited 90 timesPublished
  • United States v. Murdock

    284 U.S. 141 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 23, 1931

    , and also that the lack of state power to give witnesses protection against federal prosecution does not defeat a. state immunity statute. … The principle established is that full and complete immunity against prosecution by the government compelling the witness, to answer is equivalent to the protection furnished by the rule agáinst compulsory self-incrimination

    Overruled on other grounds by Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)Cited 198 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.