Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1831

10,000+ results

3.95s

  • Brosseau v. Haugen

    543 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 13, 2004

    not entitled to qualified immunity. … We grant the petition on the second, qualified immunity question and reverse.

    Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) — not on the Supreme Court's listCited 2,461 timesPublished
  • Walker v. Ryals

    District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 2023

    Because the above failure to protect law was clearly established prior to the May 2022 fight, I conclude Officer Huett and Corporal Barnat are not entitled to qualified immunity on this failure to protect claim. … And, because that law was clearly established before May 2022, I conclude Defendant Barnat is not entitled to qualified immunity on this excessive force claim. V.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Piphus v. Blum

    108 Ohio App. 3d 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

    would believe was lawful in light of “clearly established law” and “information possessed” at the time of the challenged conduct. … In the absence of that clearly established right, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Martinique Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections

    705 F.3d 560 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

    Taken together, these sentences clearly suffice as an assertion of qualified immunity. … Dunagan focuses on whether the law regarding same- sex strip searches is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. However, No. 11-1588 Stoudemire v. Mich.

    Cited 193 timesPublished
  • Long v. Underwood

    District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 4, 2019

    Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit “in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Univ., 102 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • McIntire v. State

    458 N.W.2d 714 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 7, 1990

    . § 1983 , the trial court correctly determined that agency's executive director, personnel director, and supervisor had a qualified immunity from liability for conduct which did not violate clearly established constitutional … To penetrate the government officials' qualified immunity, the balance must be in favor of the employee to a degree that evidences a clearly established right.

    Cited 36 timesPublished
  • Lumry v. State

    Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 5, 2018

    In claiming qualified immunity, Blecha first contends that the law was not clearly established that he could be personally liable for the FLSA claims; in other words, Blecha asserts that it was not clearly established in … N.Y. 2014) (defendant not entitled to qualified immunity since rules governing its conduct were clearly established, even if the rules about personal liability were not clearly established).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

    952 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 2020

    Without setting forth a clearly established right for which the analysis can continue, Plaintiffs have not defeated Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense. … his actions violated clearly established law.

    Cited 49 timesPublished
  • Brown v. Scott

    329 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 26, 2004

    The defendant claims that he is entitled to a dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the undisputed facts do not demonstrate a violation of the plaintiffs clearly established Eighth Amendment rights. … further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).

    Cited 70 timesPublished
  • Atkinson v. Pustilnik

    District Court, S.D. Texas · May 2, 2024

    established, meaning qualified immunity was warranted) … Violation of a Clearly Established Right The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry requires me to determine if the “right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN CTY. OF MARICOPA

    185 Ariz. 47 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 20, 1996

    Qualified immunity shields government agents if a reasonable government officer could have believed his actions to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time. Hunter v. … First, no “clearly established” legal rights were violated. Plaintiff Donaldson bears the burden of showing that “the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Romero v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • DE MONTALVO v. DIXON

    District Court, N.D. Florida · Oct 17, 2024

    FDC Defendants also assert qualified immunity. ECF No. 32 at 24-25. III. … proceed to the next step of determining if a constitutional right was clearly established”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Brown v. The Gap Inc.

    District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2024

    that right was clearly established.” … [on] the clearly-established prong of the standard.”).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • DiMeglio v. Haines

    45 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1995

    “clearly established law” has an acquired meaning in the qualified immunity context referencing law at the time of the challenged conduct. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

    Cited 236 timesPublished
  • S. B. v. County of San Diego

    864 F.3d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 2017

    COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 9 clearly established law, so qualified immunity was not appropriate. … Moreover, even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which plaintiffs rely are insufficient.

    Cited 106 timesPublished
  • Raub v. Bowen

    960 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 2, 2013

    Nevertheless, there are some clearly established standards to guide a reasonable police officer who detains a person for mental evaluation. … Goo-den filed suit and the officers invoked qualified immunity as a defense. The district court denied qualified immunity, as did a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit. Id.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Sanchez v. Sanchez

    777 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 8, 1991

    If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity. … As the reasoning in these cases demonstrates, where the right is clearly established, a defendant to a claim requiring proof of impermissible motive is not entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

    776 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

    The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … As discussed, the qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that the right was clearly established. Morgan v.

    Cited 176 timesPublished
  • Hernandez v. Mesa

    885 F.3d 811 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2018

    But the extraterritorial application of these protections to Hernández was not clearly established at the time of Mesa's tortious conduct. Mesa is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Mullenix v. … . ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • In re Davenport Hotel Building Collapse

    Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 7, 2025

    established” law under § 670.4A(3). … We also noted in Doe a fundamental incompatibility between the federal “clearly established” standard and the nature of a common law negligence action that would somehow incorporate such a standard. Id.

    Cited 0 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.