Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
4.27s
District 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 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 timesUnpublishedThe 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 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 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022
“[T]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff's version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id. … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry demands plaintiff demonstrate there was a clearly established right at the time of the challenged action.
Cited 0 timesUnknown622 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 timesPublishedMcCall v. The County of Lowndes
District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 9, 2023
Alternatively, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to show, through binding caselaw or legal principles of obvious application, that it was clearly established at … See Griffin Indus., 496 F.3d at 1199 (“Only when the official violated the law and the illegality of his conduct was clearly established must the court deny him the protection of qualified immunity.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownAndrews v. Department of Environmental Protection
1998 Me. 198 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1998
Qualified immunity shields “ ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Several federal circuit courts have observed that a public employee’s free speech right, as guaranteed by the Pickering decision and its progeny, will rarely be “clearly established” for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis
Cited 28 timesPublishedBarbara Wyatt v. Rhonda Fletcher
718 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 31, 2013
This requirement establishes a high bar. When there is no controlling authority specifically prohibiting a defendant’s conduct, the law is not clearly established for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. … Because this is a qualified immunity case, a balancing of interests requires a clearly established right.
Cited 95 timesPublished286 Neb. 532 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2013
Whether a state official should pre- vail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 26. … Qualified immunity shields state officials in their individual capacities from civil damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have
Cited 6 timesPublishedBarna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District
877 F.3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 2017
“clearly established.” … The court further concluded that the defendants who issued the notices were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that such an absolute prohibition of challenges the ban based on its absolute
Cited 485 timesPublished349 S.W.3d 769 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Oct 5, 2011
Identification of the clearly established law is not a question of fact to be established by evidence. … This would not be qualified immunity, but absolute immunity.
Cited 22 timesPublished165 Vt. 482 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Oct 11, 1996
Unless a later controlling precedent created the clearly established constitutional right we must find to overcome qualified immunity, we must use the DeShaney standard. … The court further held that the right was clearly established, and qualified immunity did not apply. Id. at 852 .
Disagreed with by Thomas Wilkinson, Benjamin Wilkinson, by Next Friend Thomas Wilkinson and Jonathan Wiegand v. Caroline S. Russell, James Adams and Gerald Jeffords, 182 F.3d 89 (1999)Cited 11 timesPublishedRobert 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 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 4, 2021
Qualified Immunity 5 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 6 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of 17 Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to 18 meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity); Hamby v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownWilliams v. Deputy Warden McKay
District Court, D. Idaho · Mar 31, 2022
Because determining clearly- established law is also the foundation for a qualified immunity defense, the Court includes qualified immunity considerations in its analysis. 3 Unless the parties can show otherwise … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015): The dispositive question [for qualified immunity] is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid.
Cited 0 timesUnknown671 So. 2d 166 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 21, 1996
concerned whether certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law. … Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1563 (11th Cir.1994) ("the issue of a government official's qualified immunity from suit presents a question of law"). The test for qualified immunity was established in Harlow v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 13, 2019
Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019), concluded that a prisoner’s “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores” was not clearly established. … Read, 663 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity limited to “the purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJARVIS BY AND THROUGH JARVIS v. Deyoe
18 Brief Times Rptr. 1399 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1994
protected by qualified immunity. … However, in evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, “determining whether a right is clearly established requires a specific inquiry, not a general inquiry based on abstract rights.” Moody v.
Cited 11 timesPublished
Ask Donna