Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
4.82s
437 N.W.2d 553 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 22, 1989
Although that holding became binding on the department, it did not amount to a holding that the legal principle was clearly established so as to deprive the commissioner of qualified immunity. … By no stretch could it be said that Bernice’s right to a termination hearing was clearly established. It follows that the commissioner was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.
Cited 1 timesPublished948 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 22, 2020
violation occurred and (2) whether the right violated was clearly established. … Still, even without “directly on-point, binding authority,” qualified immunity is inappropriate if “the 11 right was clearly established based on general constitutional principles
Cited 345 timesPublished527 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 30, 1981
Some controversy has developed over the years concerning exactly how one can tell that a particular constitutional right has become “clearly established” for purposes of applying qualified immunity for official actions, and … was therefore not clearly established.
Modified by Melvin Alexander, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Lamar Alexander, Governor, 706 F.2d 751 (1983)Cited 8 timesPublished422 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 18, 2011
In that regard, we conclude, because the right asserted was not clearly established at the time plaintiff was attacked, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his or her conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ibid.
Cited 5 timesPublishedVaughan v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
920 So. 2d 650 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 21, 2005
The essential qualified immunity issue in this appeal is whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that a warrant was required for the search of Vaughan’s property and whether, by entering his yard … inspector to render the law, establishing that a warrant was needed, not yet clearly established.
Cited 1 timesPublished32 F.4th 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2022
The panel determined that only examination of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis was necessary—whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation—because doing so would not hamper the … ” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
Cited 42 timesPublishedFreedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Romer
20 Brief Times Rptr. 1044 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996
clearly established statutory or *90 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … What is “clearly established law” is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use “its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents.”
Cited 17 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 8, 2020
However, qualified immunity shields the Defendant Officers from Hudson’s claim because they did not violate clearly established law. See White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown815 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 23, 1993
They argue that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations and also ask for reconsideration of their conspiracy claim. … Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability, provided their conduct “does not vio-' late clearly established statutory or
Cited 1 timesPublishedState Ex Rel Juvenile Department v. Tucker
76 Or. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1985
The state does not argue persuasively that the experts did possess special knowledge of Indian life, but it contends that they were nevertheless qualified, because they had the necessary expertise to establish beyond a reasonable … However, when cultural bias is clearly not implicated, the necessary proof may be provided by expert witnesses who do not possess special knowledge of Indian life.
Cited 50 timesPublishedJohnnie Williams v. Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland
917 F.3d 763 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2019
After discovery, Strickland and Heroux each moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Iko, 535 F.3d at 233.
Cited 92 timesPublished129 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025
In finding clearly established law, the district court overlooked Espinal v. … particular case at hand” and granting qualified immunity because “the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct in this case was not clearly established”). 35 See Bailey v.
Cited 11 timesPublishedAldarondo Lugo v. Municipality of Toa Baja
329 F. Supp. 2d 234 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 6, 2004
Then, Defendants paid lip service to the first and third prongs of the qualified immunity test, and addressed the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry at length: whether the right was clearly established. … The Court undertook an analysis of qualified immunity with the record before it. The law was clearly established, the second prong was met, but that was not dispositive of the defense.
Cited 1 timesPublishedHitoshi Yoshikawa v. Troy Seguirant
41 F.4th 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2022
Because there is a circuit split, he claims that there is no clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. We are not persuaded by this argument. … Simply put, invoking McDonnell Douglas at this stage created unnecessary confusion over the clearly established law test for qualified immunity.
Cited 20 timesPublishedMitchell v. Township of Willingboro Municipality Government
913 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2012
The Third Circuit has clearly held that “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v. … Defendant Perez does not argue that Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights in this case were not clearly established. Consequently, the Plaintiffs complaint satisfies the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
Cited 24 timesPublished193 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 16, 2016
Clearly Established Further, even if Hollandsworth used excessive force, she would still be entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established' constitutional right. … Clearly Established Law Alternatively, even if Gibson did use excessive force, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.
Cited 7 timesPublishedUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis
43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 288 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000
The motion for summary judgment argued that as a matter of law the plaintiff failed to plead specific facts that would indicate a violation of clearly established law. … The motion then argued extensively that as a matter of law Fain and Winchester were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
Cited 16 timesPublished310 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 2018
In other words, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established. … In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established or not for purposes of qualified immunity courts must consider whether "any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was
Cited 53 timesPublished669 F.2d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 1982
The district court held that the Governor’s qualified immunity protected him from deposition absent a showing by plaintiffs of specific need.
Cited 59 timesPublished44 F.4th 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022
Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Escajeda next argues that, fact disputes aside, he is still entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. We agree.
Cited 12 timesPublished
Ask Donna