Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters2016

10,000+ results

1.60s

  • Woodyard v. Alabama Department of Corrections

    700 F. App'x 927 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

    rights and (2) that those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Because Woodyard must establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Leggett violated his constitutional rights before he can possibly overcome the officer’s qualified immunity defense, we address the district

    Cited 15 timesUnpublished
  • The Estate of Donald Nash v. Henry Folsom

    92 F.4th 746 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 9, 2024

    The court then held that the right was clearly established and proceeded to deny the officers qualified immunity on Count I. … Clearly Established “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Robinson v. Langdon

    333 Ark. 662 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1998

    Fitzgerald, the [government official] will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Shuffield had “fair warning” that he was violating a clearly established right in determining that the allegation of abuse was “founded.”

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • Goetz v. Noble

    652 So. 2d 1203 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 29, 1995

    Qualified immunity affords government officials performing discretionary functions protection from liability under section 1983 where their conduct does not violate what reasonable people would recognize as a clearly established … Harlow 's "clearly established" standard demands that a bright line be crossed.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Robert Tolan v. Jeffrey Cotton

    713 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 2013

    “The second prong of the qualified immunity test is [] understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, … clearly- established law.

    Reversed on other grounds by Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014)Cited 17 timesPublished
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

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.