Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
7.33s
899 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 27, 2012
Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifted Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time
Cited 68 timesPublishedJody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis
38 F.4th 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022
In concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of a clearly established right, we stated that, under the cases in this circuit addressing prone restraint, “there is no clearly established … Because the right at issue was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 19 timesPublished126 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 10, 1997
Agent Gesi moved to dismiss the action on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that Agent Gesi violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. See Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v.
Overruled on other grounds by Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (2001)Cited 87 timesPublished20 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 28, 1998
Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right of which a … To determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity protection from the claims in Count I, we must determine whether the right claimed is a clearly-established one.
Cited 7 timesPublishedJanowski v. City of North Wildwood
259 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 5, 2017
“The doctrine of 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 person … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”).
Cited 61 timesPublished379 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2019
Borough of Nesquehoning , 905 F.3d 711 , 719 (3d Cir. 2018) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry was whether the right at issue in that case was clearly established at the time the alleged conduct occurred). … They argue that because it was not clearly established in 1992 that police officers had any Brady obligations, the Defendant detectives are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.
Cited 27 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 15, 2021
Qualified Immunity 22 Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability where a reasonable officer would 23 not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. … established law.”). 24 Officer Wallace is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity 25 because, as established previously, there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Wallace 26
Cited 0 timesUnknownBayer v. Monroe County Children and Youth Services
577 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2009
And in light of Pearson , we need not reach this issue, as we find that, under the “clearly established” prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to this claim. … See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 (forgoing the first Saucier step and finding the defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity because [their conduct] did not violate clearly established law”).
Cited 90 timesPublished847 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2017
But “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … The officials are thus entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, because Kulkay fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, he is not entitled to discovery before dismissal.
Cited 297 timesPublished980 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 24, 2013
In determining whether qualified immunity shields a state actor from liability, courts look at 1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and 2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Taylor, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir.2013), and that the prohibition against “deliberately fabricating evidence and framing individuals for crimes they did not commit,” as alleged in this case, was clearly established as far back
Cited 2 timesPublishedCourt 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 timesUnpublished86 P.3d 1234 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004
Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu's clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 65-66 , 830 P.2d 318 .
Cited 33 timesPublished173 Conn. App. 539 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 6, 2017
Indeed, it is well established that conditioning immunity on the exercise of good faith is consistent with qualified immunity, not absolute immu- nity. See, e.g., Villages, LLC v. Longhi, 166 Conn. … and qualified immunity as grounds for summary judgment.
Cited 5 timesPublished593 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 2010
Because the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … But in qualified immunity cases, except in the most obvious cases, broad, general propositions of law are insufficient to suggest clearly established law. See Brousseau v.
Cited 97 timesPublishedDavis v. Town of Southern Pines
116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994
“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)
Cited 61 timesPublished294 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 20, 2018
In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts...to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts … to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v.
Cited 6 timesPublishedTesla Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association
District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 7, 2025
The Impact of Asserting Qualified Immunity on Discovery When dismissal is sought on the grounds of qualified immunity, however, a stay of discovery is virtually routine because a defendant pleading qualified … immunity operates to stay discovery only as to the defendants asserting qualified immunity, not to co-defendants or on other claims not subject to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2025
1 parole revocation acts like a police officer applying for an arrest warrant and is therefore entitled 2 to qualified immunity); Thornton v. … arising from the duty to supervise parolees is 9 covered by qualified immunity[.]”). 10 Plaintiff’s allegations in both claims two and three that he has been arrested and returned
Cited 0 timesUnknown274 S.W.3d 697 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008
In response to Newman’s due process and due course claims, Appellees asserted the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and official immunity and filed a traditional motion for summary judgment claiming that they established … that violated clearly established law.
Cited 26 timesPublished96 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 2015
Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, therefore, turns on whether and when the rights that Hassell invokes were “clearly established.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .
Cited 20 timesPublished
Ask Donna