Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.16s
Hitoshi 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 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 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 timesPublishedChurchill v. University of Colorado at Boulder
285 P.3d 986 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 10, 2012
Third, we hold that Churchill's bad faith investigation claim is barred by qualified immunity because the Regents' investigation into Churchill's academic record does not implicate a clearly established statutory or constitutional … . 1839 Qualified immunity applies to a public official's conduct when she takes a discretionary action that a reasonable person would not know violates a clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiff.
Cited 50 timesPublishedJonathan Capp v. County of San Diego
940 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2019
clearly established. … Clearly Established Having determined that Plaintiffs plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim, we now move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether “the right at issue was ‘clearly
Cited 175 timesPublishedPatrick Dockery v. Sherrie Blackburn
911 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2018
Qualified Immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). … Qualified-immunity analysis usually entails a two-step inquiry: we ask (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly
Cited 190 timesPublishedMawson v. Pittston Police Department
145 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2015
The defendant objects to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established. (Doc. 93, p. 13). … Again, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the court must determine whether the facts — taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — establish a violation of clearly established law and that a reasonable
Cited 3 timesPublishedKostic v. Texas A & M University at Commerce
11 F. Supp. 3d 699 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2014
Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was “objectively reasonable in light of ‘clearly established
Cited 10 timesPublished361 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 1, 2019
established right and were entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants have appealed the portion of the court's order denying them qualified immunity based on whether the law was clearly established law. The same is true for Hopper v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedRandall Ehlers v. Scott Dirkes
846 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2017
statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … A reasonable officer would not have understood the action in question to constitute excessive force.4 Thus, the law was not clearly established, and Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity. 4 Ehlers relies
Cited 143 timesPublishedPatrick Russell v. Jocelyn Lumitap
31 F.4th 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 13, 2022
, but instead argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Russell’s clearly established constitutional rights on the record taken in the light most favorable to Russell. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established at the time that he acted,40 and the law at the time that the defendants acted was different than it is now.
Cited 57 timesPublished626 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 15, 2009
Defendants maintain that they did not violate Bellamy’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, but even if they did they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not contravene any clearly established constitutional … immunity when there is a violation of clearly established federal law.
Cited 1 timesPublished94 F.4th 423 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 2024
Indeed, it is useful to divide this second component of qualified immunity into two questions: “whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so … established law for qualified immunity analysis.”
Cited 5 timesPublished757 F.3d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014
If, upon application of the test, Nord’s rights were not clearly established, Wild is, of course, entitled to a qualified immunity defense against Nord’s claims. … immunity because Wild’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. *745 III.
Cited 78 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 timesPublished256 Wis. 2d 365 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · May 16, 2002
Qualified immunity overview. ¶ 15. … Wisconsin or federal case law *388 clearly establishing such an interest. Therefore, we conclude that qualified immunity bars all their federal claims. 16 CONCLUSION ¶ 22.
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2021
See Mot. at 17–18. 1 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability 2 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional … actions, 18 as clearly established law).
Cited 0 timesUnknown944 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 16, 2013
Belizaire has failed to satisfy her burden of alleging the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. First, Ms. … Belizaire fails to allege the violation of a clearly established right, Expósito is entitled to qualified immunity. See Bailey v.
Cited 9 timesPublishedKauch v. Department for Children, Youth & Their Families
321 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 14, 2003
A three-part test is used to determine if an official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, a court considers whether "the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." … Second, we determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.
Cited 29 timesPublished
Ask Donna