Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
3.86s
Shaniz West v. City of Caldwell
931 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019
Principles Governing Qualified Immunity Police officers have qualified immunity for their official conduct unless (1) they violate a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established … established case law in qualified immunity cases.
Cited 20 timesPublished619 F.3d 323 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 24, 2010
immunity defense based on whether the law is “clearly established” is a separate and required judicial action. 12 *337 The contours of that qualified immunity inquiry were laid out in Saucier. … Second, we have found no support for the proposition that a dissent may propound clearly established law for purposes of determining qualified immunity.
Cited 9 timesPublished350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003
This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where ‘clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers’ actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.
Cited 163 timesPublished841 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 1988
damages action by qualified immunity pursuant to Harlow v. … However, these factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions
Cited 336 timesPublishedBrian Pearson v. Tyler Eldridge
2022 DNH 039 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2022
Eldridge has moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. Because Eldridge has not established that qualified immunity shields him from suit, I deny the motion. I. … right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”
Cited 1 timesPublishedRamona Hinojosa v. Brad Livingston
807 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2015
If true, this would defeat a qualified immunity defense, because it would establish that Defendants subjected Hinojosa to extreme temperatures without adequate remedial measures, in violation of our circuit’s clearly established … light of clearly established law.
Cited 134 timesPublished518 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2008
The court further held that the right Fortner and Scott allegedly violated was clearly established and therefore concluded that Fortner and Scott were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Was the Right Violated Clearly Established? The second question in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established.
Cited 118 timesPublished118 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 1997
Defendants argued Spiegel had probable cause for the arrest and reasonable suspicion for the strip search, and that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. … did not violate clearly established law.
Cited 511 timesPublishedTerm Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Cleveland
996 F.2d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 1993
II. 10 Defendants argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' § 1983 claim because Ohio law on the status of federal certification labels was not clearly established at the time of their … See Robinson, 840 F.2d at 351 (explaining that a question must be decided by the highest state court in the state where the case arose in order to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished502 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2007
by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity. … See has met his burden of establishing that Med-ders is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 96 timesPublished336 F. Supp. 3d 283 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 2018
Plaintiff also argues that references to "immunity" within the charge improperly invited the jury to speculate on the question of qualified immunity. The word "immunity" appeared twice in my charge. … The reference to "immunity" did not muddle the applicable legal standards. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court, see Hunter v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBaar v. Jefferson County Board of Education
686 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 19, 2010
As the Sixth Circuit explained, “[u]nder this judicially created exception, government officials are immune from civil liability when acting in an official capacity if their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory … These two recent cases do not give clearly established guidance in our circumstances.
Cited 15 timesPublishedSharon Powell v. Jennifer Snook
25 F.4th 912 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2022
The qualified immunity issue before us is the familiar one of whether clearly established law put Snook on notice that firing the shots he did violated David Powell’s constitutional rights. … For qualified immun- ity to apply, an officer “must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.” Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1280 (11th Cir. 2013).
Abrogated on other grounds by Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73 (2025)Cited 72 timesPublished131 F. Supp. 3d 703 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2015
The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”
Cited 7 timesPublished704 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 1989
qualified immunity. … Defendants claim that qualified immunity relieves them of liability because at the time of their alleged actions there was no established case law upholding a First Amendment claim for retaliation as petty and far removed
Cited 1 timesPublishedEstate of Seth Michael Zakora v. Troy Chrisman
44 F.4th 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022
Two factors lead us away, however, from deciding this case under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity for the first time on appeal. … No clearly established constitutional right. What ought to create a stop sign at step one of qualified immunity generates a grinding halt at step two.
Cited 143 timesPublishedEstate of Madison Jody Jensen v. Clyde
989 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 2, 2021
right was clearly established at the time in question. … Jensen’s rights, those rights were not clearly established.
Cited 26 timesPublished658 F.3d 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 2011
qualifies as a predi- cate offense. … “Our purpose is to determine whether documentation or judicially noticeable facts clearly establish that the defendant pleaded guilty to facts covered by the predicate offense.” Id. at 968.
Abrogated on other grounds by Roberto Lopez Valencia v. Loretta E. Lynch, 798 F.3d 863 (2015)Cited 24 timesPublished144 N.C. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001
They may, however, raise the defense of qualified immunity to section 1983 claims. Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory
Cited 22 timesPublished624 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010
Government officials are entitled to 2 qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 4 reasonable person would have known." … Ct. at 813 ("We now hold that the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement and that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established
Cited 154 timesPublished
Ask Donna