Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.96s
222 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 19, 2002
— was also clearly established. … The Court notes, under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, that the contours of this constitutional violation for qualified immunity purposes were clearly established at the relevant time.
Cited 8 timesPublishedSteven Taylor v. Robert Caples
2 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 2021
Because material disputes of fact must be resolved before we can reach the legal argument of whether Caples’s conduct violates clearly established law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. … violated a clearly established federal right.
Cited 9 timesPublishedStephen Burrell v. Mike McIlroy Glen C. Rector Jeff Thorpe
464 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 2006
Moreover, even if Rule 41 were applicable to the search, at the time of the search the failure to serve a warrant at the outset of a search was not a clearly established violation of the constitution. … Thus, on the facts of this case, the district court did not err in finding that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.
Cited 34 timesPublished840 F. Supp. 489 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 6, 1993
The deputies are clearly entitled to qualified immunity.”); Jones v. City of Upper Arlington, 986 F.2d 1421 (6th Cir.1993); Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331 (6th Cir.1993). … It also seems that once you have determined the need for the defense of [qualified immunity], ... as a matter of law ... the officer has acted unreasonably ... and has violated clearly established law. Yates v.
Cited 6 timesPublished895 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018
Even if the officers had used unreasonable force, the court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the officers did not violate a clearly established right. Id. at 1016-22 . … "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." Kisela v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedKenneth Ratliff v. Aransas County, Texas
948 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 15, 2020
He offered the testimony because of a failing memory and to rebut the deputies’ qualified immunity defense in this § 1983 case. … The second “asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656.
Cited 156 timesPublished17 F. Supp. 3d 1227 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 6, 2014
“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Behrens v. … On a motion to dismiss, “[t]o evaluate claims of qualified immunity, the Court considers whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at
Cited 1 timesPublishedJohn Moody v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd.
871 F.3d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2017
Therefore, the right was clearly established. … We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment claim, and hold that the right articulated in Moody I was clearly established at the time of the violation. 2.
Cited 25 timesPublishedKersavage v. University of Tennessee
731 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 5, 1989
Moreover, the Court does not believe that qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants as a matter of law because the law of patent infringement is clearly established, relegating the application of such immunity … Reconsideration of Qualified Immunity The two individual defendants reassert their defense of qualified immunity, contending that under applicable precedent they could not have known that their conduct violated established
Cited 5 timesPublished682 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 7, 2010
A right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants’ Motion for Qualified Immunity Each Defendant argues even if his actions violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, the defense of qualified immunity shields him from liability. 4 The qualified immunity analysis
Cited 8 timesPublished828 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 2016
To that end, qualified immunity shields an officer from damages liability when it was not “clearly established that the Fourth Amendment prohibited [his] conduct in the ‘situation [he] confronted.’” Mullenix v. … qualified immunity defense.
Cited 34 timesPublished957 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 30, 2013
Determining whether qualified immunity applies entails a two-step inquiry: (1) “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged;” and (2) “whether the right was clearly established.” … Moreover, based on the discussion of Buckley and Kalina above, the right not to be deprived of one’s liberty by the fabrication of evidence is clearly established.
Cited 4 timesPublished98 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 1996
The Supreme Court has established a three-part test for Article III standing. … immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTayvin Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa
134 F.4th 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 17, 2025
“An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s alleged wrongdoing.” … Independent of federal qualified immunity, Iowa officers enjoy statutory immunity where “[t]he right . . . secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · Feb 3, 2026
(Doc. 25 at 5.) 13 In response, Plaintiff once again does not attempt to identify a prior case that might 14 qualify as clearly established law supporting his position. (Doc. 26 at 8.) … Cnty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 673 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[E]ven 10 where the clearly established legal standard requires [subjective] deliberate indifference, 11 the qualified immunity inquiry should concentrate
Cited 0 timesUnknownSonia Garcia v. Wesley Blevins
957 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 30, 2020
We therefore hold Blevins is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. IV. … The Garcias also assert that, if we conclude the law was not clearly established, we should reconsider our approach to qualified immunity.
Cited 80 timesPublished316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003
We cannot conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. Atkinson has fulfilled Sauciers first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Milhouse clearly established that such retaliatory actions, if proven, are not legal. Thus, Saucier’s second prong is satisfied and appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.
Cited 350 timesPublished427 S.W.3d 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 2013
Under that analysis, a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, and … Brt, supra (emphasis added). 5 The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that “courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without
Cited 18 timesPublished983 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 28, 2020
Bachmann appealed from the denial of qualified immunity arguing that the scope of supervisory liability for deliberate- indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment is not clearly established after Ashcroft v. … is not clearly established.
Cited 1,265 timesPublishedDivision of Employment Security v. Board of Police Commissioners
864 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017
The Officers “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Our prior cases have clearly established that use of [a] taser on a nonfleeing, nonviolent suspected misdemeanant [is] unreasonable.” Brossart v.
Cited 28 timesPublished
Ask Donna