Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
4.19s
Derrick Dutton v. Sheryl Hayes-Pupko
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 7, 2008
He asserted that Hayes-Pupko had to overcome his assertion of qualified immunity by proving that he (1) violated her clearly established rights and (2) acted unreasonably or in bad faith in doing so. … Discussion "A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
Cited 0 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 timesPublishedMoody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board
202 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 15, 2016
Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have believed his actions to be lawful, the rights at issue were not clearly established. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. C. … Finally, the Defendants argue that they are still entitled to qualified immunity because any violation did not involve a clearly established right that a reasonable person would have known. Dkt. No. 144 at 30-31 (Pg.
Cited 2 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 3, 2005
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMabry ex rel. T.M. v. Lee County
100 F. Supp. 3d 568 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 30, 2015
In order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Officer Fant is accordingly entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 10 timesPublishedBryheim Jamar Baskin v. Rafael Martinez (081982) (Camden County & Statewide)
Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 9, 2020
If the right at issue is not clearly established, then the officer alleged to have violated that right will be entitled to qualified immunity. … Many Section 1983 cases rise or fall on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublishedKapinski v. City of Albuquerque
964 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 2020
In response, Detective Juarez moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that omitting the video footage did not transgress any clearly established law. … clearly established.”
Cited 49 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2024
Finally, to overcome the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the (7) constitutional right he contends was violated was clearly established. … Mims misapprehends exactly what law must be clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.
Cited 0 timesUnknown727 A.2d 687 · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Mar 30, 1999
Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991), the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, made the following observation regarding qualified immunity: “Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields … Thus, the determination of qualified immunity on summary judgment has clearly been held to be appropriate.
Cited 19 timesPublishedDavid Roberts v. City of Omaha
723 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013
There is no clearly established law indicating Roberts’s suggested rights applied in the circumstances of this case. The district court should have granted the officers qualified immunity on these claims. … City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 482 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining under “qualified immunity, a county employee may be held personally liable for a constitutional violation only if his own conduct violated a clearly established
Cited 43 timesPublishedKovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services
724 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013
rights were not clearly established as of March 26, 2002. … Clearly Established Rights We now turn to whether the law was clearly established on March 26, 2002, that a social worker could not seize children from their home without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or another recognized
Cited 71 timesPublishedConde v. Colorado State Department of Personnel
18 Brief Times Rptr. 451 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1994
The plaintiffs complaint must adequately state a claim of violation of clearly established law; if not, a defendant pleading qualified immunity will be entitled to dismissal before discovery commences. Mitchell v. … Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of identifying both the clearly established law that the government official is alleged to have violated and the conduct that violated
Cited 10 timesPublished585 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2009
Alternatively, even if Zemlik used excessive force, he is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of his actions … Therefore, Zemlik’s actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 219 timesPublished47 F.4th 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 7, 2022
Qualified Immunity Standard of Review “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Law is Clearly Established The district court held that the law was clearly established.
Cited 72 timesPublished477 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2007
Rather, a motion under Rule 59(e) “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d at 16 ; FDIC v. … Winchester-Conant Prop., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir.2003) (“Uses of the copyrighted work that stay within the scope of a nonexclusive license are immunized from infringement suits.”).
Cited 293 timesPublished171 Wash. App. 585 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 2012
The second question, specific to qualified immunity, is whether the constitutional right was clearly established given the specific context of the case before the court. … Qualified Immunity ¶20 Mr.
Cited 3 timesPublished16 S.W.3d 173 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 13, 2000
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … After a governmental official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
Cited 52 timesPublishedPaulette Smith v. Edward Agdeppa
81 F.4th 994 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2023
immunity analysis—whether the claimed unlawfulness of Agdeppa’s conduct was “clearly established … We are asked to decide whether this officer is entitled to qualified immunity. We hold that he is. The officer’s use of deadly force did not violate clearly established law.
Cited 20 timesPublished164 Wash. App. 820 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2011
Qualified Immunity ¶41 “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.
Cited 17 timesPublished301 Mich. App. 582 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013
While this is a well-established principle, it is not absolute. In certain instances, Michigan criminal law clearly places the fact-finding function with the trial court judge. … To qualify for § 4 immunity, one must prove that he or she “(1) is a qualifying patient, (2) who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card, and (3) possesses less than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana,” and
Cited 5 timesPublished
Ask Donna