Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.04s
Robert Saterdalen v. James Spencer
725 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013
Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 suit unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … The question of qualified immunity thus “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [official’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”
Cited 89 timesPublishedKimberly Boude v. Michael Heady
855 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 5, 2017
Qualified immunity is a basis to dismiss a claim against a public employee if the alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … This court need not address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Harris, 550 U.S. at 377.
Cited 62 timesPublishedHerrera v. City of Albuquerque
589 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 2009
O’Brien [wa]s entitled to qualified immunity and [thus was] immune from suit.” Id. at 120. … Qualified immunity “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
Cited 42 timesPublishedVan Deelen v. City of Eudora, Kan.
53 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 29, 1999
At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, qualified immunity protects defendants performing discretionary functions from individual liability unless, on the face of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the violation of “clearly established … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”
Cited 26 timesPublished404 F.3d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 2005
Glynn Pepper’s summary judgment motion asserting in part his qualified immunity as a state official. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields 2 government officials from civil liability as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
Cited 16 timesPublishedBrad Rush v. City of Philadelphia
78 F.4th 610 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2023
Dennis and denied Officer Nicoletti qualified immunity. … However, qualified immunity exonerates even unreasonable officer conduct unless (1) the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established, “such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable
Cited 15 timesPublished808 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2015
She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need. … “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.
Cited 10 timesPublished509 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 2007
In other words, qualified immunity need only be granted if there is a violation of a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time the official violated it. … If, and only if, the force used was objectively unreasonable should the Court consider qualified immunity and address the second question: whether the right violated was clearly established. B.
Cited 106 timesPublished21 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994
balancing test, it can rarely be considered “clearly established” for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.... ... … We then addressed the city council members’ assertion of qualified immunity and concluded that qualified immunity was not appropriate because Casey’s right of free speech was clearly established. Id. at 804.
Cited 48 timesPublishedZaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs
Supreme Court of Kansas · Jun 27, 2025
Second, she claims that even if the library itself is a qualifying property, the immunity exception does not apply to the parking lot because granting immunity to areas "integral" to the function of a qualifying property … For example, the public library's StoryWalk would qualify for recreational use immunity if it was hosted outdoors but would not qualify for immunity if it was hosted indoors.
Cited 0 timesPublished735 So. 2d 511 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 28, 1999
A determination of qualified immunity involves a two part analysis. See Vermette v. … Cooley’s clearly established rights, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Officer Montague’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Reversed and remanded. FULMER, A.C.J., Concurs in result only.
Cited 1 timesPublished594 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2010
Qualified Immunity 1. … of qualified immunity.
Cited 45 timesPublished959 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 27, 2020
5 clearly established at the relevant time. … Specifically, when a defendant raises the qualified- immunity defense at summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established
Cited 21 timesPublishedSummerville v. City of Forest Park
195 Ohio App. 3d 13 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2011
Qualified Immunity {¶17} Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at … Moreover, she failed to demonstrate that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. {¶34} Therefore, we hold that Pape and Hall are entitled to qualified immunity on Summerville’s Section 1983 claims against them
Cited 7 timesPublishedPenilla v. City of Huntington Park
115 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1997
Because the officers have moved for qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we decide only whether defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Todd v. … The officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right to emergency medical care for persons not in custody and because there is no clearly established
Cited 90 timesPublished326 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2004
Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officers immune unless their actions were “clearly proscribed” by established law).
Cited 9 timesPublishedSteven Bangs v. Walter William Smith
84 F.4th 87 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 12, 2023
Geraci, Judge) dismissing his complaint on the grounds that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bangs’s rights in this context were not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[w]hether the law was sufficiently clearly established is . . . an issue of law that we consider de novo.” Outlaw v. City of Hartford, 884 F.3d 351, 366 (2d Cir. 2018).
Cited 23 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 31, 2018
Sayed fails to allege that Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. at 57. But the argument that followed did not address qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity and Heck are analytically distinct doctrines: qualified immunity asks whether a defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established, Thomas, 765 F.3d at 1194; Heck evaluates
Cited 0 timesUnpublished303 Mich. App. 247 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2013
Accordingly, we hold that defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence at the evidentiary hearing to qualify for the § 4(d) presumption of immunity and that he is not entitled to immunity under § 4 of the MMMA. C. … Section 4(f), which provides a qualified immunity for physicians, mandates that the immunity only applies to physi *262 cians that prescribe marijuana “in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship ....”
Cited 7 timesPublishedRichmond v. City of Brooklyn Center
490 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007
Therefore, we proceed directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the asserted constitutional right was clearly established. … that a right is clearly established.'"
Cited 33 timesPublished
Ask Donna