Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
4.19s
Ex parte Harvey Ruffin, Shelton Patterson, Sandra Giles and Kenneth Jones.
160 So. 3d 750 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 29, 2014
The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established … the petitioners violated clearly established constitutional law.
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict 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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2025
The second step of the qualified immunity analysis provides that defendants are 22 entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right allegedly violated 2 was clearly established at the time of the violation; if the plaintiff meets this burden, then the 3 defendant bears the burden of establishing
Cited 0 timesUnknown813 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 2015
The defendants do not challenge the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard, other than in a single sentence stating that “Plaintiff failed to show that the Sheriff violated a clearly … Henderson has not carried her burden of establishing he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established, we conclude the district court erred in holding he is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 55 timesPublished390 F. App'x 22 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 2010
A government official is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions unless his conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Pearson v. … The Second Circuit has held that a right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if “(1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the right, and
Cited 4 timesUnpublished14 F.4th 981 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2021
Dissenting, Judge Bennett would hold that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Clearly Established Right Defendants in this case focus their challenge to the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the second prong of the analysis, the “clearly established” element, and on only part of
Cited 37 timesPublishedState of New Jersey, by the Commissioner of Transportation v. Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc.
439 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2015
Turning to the State's assertion of qualified immunity as grounds for dismissal, it is well-established that the doctrine balances the need to hold public officials accountable for improperly … We ask (1) "whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged" and (2) "whether the right was clearly established." Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.
Cited 40 timesPublishedCostanich v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
627 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2010
clearly established. 1. … immunity, this right had not previ- ously been clearly established in the civil context.13 [12] A right is “clearly established” when “the contours of the right were already delineated with sufficient clarity to make
Cited 45 timesPublished2013 Ohio 350 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2013
. {¶51} The doctrine of federal qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In the context of the qualified-immunity analysis, we affirmed the trial court’s determination that Jones had shown the violation of her clearly established procedural-due-process right to a predeprivation hearing.
Cited 19 timesPublished686 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 18, 1988
Put simply, if a defendant did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. … If a defendant did violate a clearly established constitutional right, he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 6, 2022
Qualified Immunity The Defendants alternatively argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. … The Court, having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation finds that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to each of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith
994 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2021
Haser and Officer White were entitled to qualified immunity because Peroza-Benitez’s constitutional rights at issue were not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … At summary judgment, the burden is on the officer to establish an entitlement to qualified immunity. Halsey, 750 F.3d at 288.
Cited 190 timesPublishedState, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services v. Doherty
167 P.3d 64 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007
11 Second, "if so, was that right clearly established?" … . 18 Unlike the test for qualified immunity, the test for a facially valid $ 1983 claim does not require the court to consider whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established or whether a reasonable officer
Cited 19 timesPublished672 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 27, 2012
The second step in our qualified immunity inquiry is whether Morris’s right to be free from an unlawful arrest was clearly established. … Yet even if Noe violated a constitutional right, he is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time.
Cited 215 timesPublished643 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 1986
If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … The Court explained: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.
Cited 53 timesPublished408 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 2004
Immunity Defense In Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the plaintiff raised the potential issue of Shotts’ ability to raise an *639 affirmative defense of qualified immunity … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (establishing the objective standard for qualified immunity) and Rakovich v.
Cited 0 timesPublished258 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2001
The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … If a reasonable official would have known that the conduct was unlawful, qualified immunity is generally not available.2 See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense or dinarily
Cited 49 timesUnknown333 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 timesPublished276 Wis. 2d 679 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 16, 2004
given right was clearly established." … clearly established.
Cited 2 timesPublished919 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 2019
"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " Dist. of … Qualified Immunity Having concluded that the search as alleged violated the Constitution, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether the unlawfulness of the agents' conduct was clearly established
Cited 31 timesPublished
Ask Donna