Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
4.84s
536 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 12, 2008
Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights under RLUIPA. 1. … Qualified immunity applies unless a defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hope v.
Cited 10 timesPublishedHernandez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services
380 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2004
The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.
Cited 146 timesPublishedJesse Drewniak v. P U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.
2021 DNH 020 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 26, 2021
Qualter’s Assertions of Qualified Immunity Do Not Warrant a Stay of All Pretrial Proceedings and Discovery Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly … It is for this reason that, “[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
Cited 0 timesPublished585 F.3d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009
Where “the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct ... was not clearly established, [the officers] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 823 . … In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, we therefore look at the specific actions of the officer to determine whether it was clearly established that his actions violated the inmate’s rights.
Overruled on other grounds by Stephen McCrary v. Kenneth Baudwin, 500 F. App'x 551 (2013)Cited 27 timesPublishedSaenz v. Lovington Municipal School District
105 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 30, 2015
established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.
Cited 10 timesPublishedJohn Dee Carruth v. Robert J. Bentley
942 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2019
Since there is no clearly established law establishing that Carruth’s alleged differential treatment violated the Equal Protection Clause, Bentley and Byrne are entitled to qualified immunity. … It is Carruth’s burden to establish that Byrne and Bentley are not entitled to qualified immunity and he has not met it.
Cited 53 timesPublished873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2012
“[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 should have … If a right is clearly established, a public official is granted qualified immunity only if a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right. See id.
Cited 10 timesPublishedAmanda Pierner-Lytge v. Montrell Hobbs
60 F.4th 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2023
Qualified Immunity “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … No. 22-1976 Under prong two, Pierner-Lytge must demonstrate that it was clearly established in April 2020 that probable cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct did not exist.
Cited 39 timesPublished500 U.S. 226 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 23, 1991
Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, “[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action … This case demonstrates the desirability of this approach to a claim of immunity, for Siegert failed not only to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of Gilley’s actions,
Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) — not on the Supreme Court's listCited 2,571 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025
To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … For now, the officers cannot avail themselves of qualified immunity because Allen has identified a clearly established right to be free from unlawful custody as part of a prosecution.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHerrera 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 timesPublished993 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2014
The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional
Cited 4 timesPublishedSarita Merricks v. Jeffery Adkisson
785 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2015
The Qualified Immunity Defense and the Clearly Established Requirement The qualified immunity defense “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.
Cited 40 timesPublishedRobert 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 timesPublished536 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2013
Moreover, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and, as to the materials he eventually received, any injunctive relief would be moot. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (state officers entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not violate clearly established law); Warsoldier, 418 at 997 n.7 (“There exists little Ninth Circuit authority construing
Cited 0 timesUnpublished607 P.2d 233 · Utah Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1979
establishes that a constitutional provision has been violated. … noncitizens. 7 The doctrine of fundamental rights was first established in Corfield v.
Cited 32 timesPublishedCharles Johnson, Jr. v. City of Atlanta
107 F.4th 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2024
To show that qualified immunity is not appropriate, “the plaintiff must establish two things: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was ‘clearly established … immunity, and we do not address the second prong—whether the law was clearly established. 7 C.
Cited 161 timesPublished703 F. App'x 547 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2017
The district court properly dismissed Mize’s Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right); Hope v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished396 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 2, 2005
Camilo-Robles, 151 F.3d at 6 . 5 More specifically, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and … The Second Prong: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”
Cited 3 timesPublished601 F.3d 805 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010
Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [42 U.S.C. §] 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of … To defeat Zefferi’s qualified immunity claim, Morris must show Zefferi potentially violated Morris’s clearly established constitutional right as a pretrial detainee to be free from being transported for ninety minutes in
Cited 138 timesPublished
Ask Donna