Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
5.39s
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 timesPublished179 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 timesPublishedGeraldine 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 timesPublishedLinda 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 timesPublished844 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 timesPublishedDesiree 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 timesPublished607 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 timesUnpublished284 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 timesPublishedDicks Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Jenne
740 So. 2d 576 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 21, 1999
Initially, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Deputy Biernacki had "failed to establish his entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law, particularly in light of the court's prior ruling that the arrest … decision on the qualified immunity issue; and the record before this court does not support a finding that the prior rulings were clearly erroneous.
Cited 10 timesPublishedKevin Laury v. Matthew Rodriguez
659 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2016
Actions on the Ground Price’s actions following the initial takedown are similarly not entitled to qualified immunity. … show that there was a constitutional violation and that the right at issue was clearly established.
Cited 22 timesUnpublishedDistrict Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2020
A court considering a claim of 8 qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 9 constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established, such that it would … Even if the 17 allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for violation of § 5301, defendants are 18 entitled to qualified immunity because of the lack of clearly established law. 19 In Nelson
Cited 0 timesUnknownMathis v. Centurion Correctional Healthcare of New Mexico, LLC
District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 16, 2023
or whether the law was clearly established. … That case is insufficient to overcome the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity defense. Cf. Cummings, 913 F.3d at 1244 (“Plaintiffs' reliance on Gardner is patently misguided.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 24, 2022
Motions on Qualified Immunity Second, the remaining defendants who have already appeared? … See 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 ascertain
Cited 0 timesUnknownNina J. Lechiara v. Gary M. Gaskins Kenneth L. Gorby Stephen R. Dolly Geraldine Floyd
866 F.2d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 23, 1989
Second, each of the defendants was immune from Sec. 1983 liability for his actions. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (magistrates' judicial immunity); Imbler v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1982) (state trooper's qualified immunity for actions not violative of clearly established rights of which reasonable person would know). 3 For the above reasons the district court's dismissal
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCalifornia Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.
445 U.S. 97 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 3, 1980
The “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” goal of the state policy was to “displace unfettered business freedom in the matter of the establishment and relocation of automobile dealerships.” Id., at 109 . … These decisions establish two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown .
Cited 764 timesPublished955 F. Supp. 1293 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 30, 1997
Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time a constitutional violation occurred.
Cited 15 timesPublishedThe Estate of Marquette F. Cummings Jr. v. Warden Carter Davenport
906 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2018
And he maintained that no authority clearly established that Davenport’s actions were unconstitutional. … On the contrary, the Court has explained that “[t]he conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that ‘where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not
Cited 97 timesPublished2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 1998
(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment? … Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that
Reversed on other grounds by Lisa's Party City, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 185 F.3d 12 (1999)Cited 7 timesPublished188 F. Supp. 3d 565 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 18, 2016
The defendants move to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity. … a history of criminal violations qualified as an unlawful seizure, in light of clearly established law.
Cited 2 timesPublished622 A.2d 74 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 1, 1993
Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretion *76 ary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because their actions violated Ryan’s clearly established rights, Logan and Todd are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.
Cited 16 timesPublished
Ask Donna