Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1925

10,000+ results

1.21s

  • Ciolino v. Gikas

    861 F.3d 296 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 28, 2017

    Qualified Immunity Framework Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 suits for damages if their actions "d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Ct. 1765, 1776 (2015) ("Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if 'clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.").

    Cited 34 timesPublished
  • Elder v. Holloway

    984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

    Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.

    Reversed by Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510 (1994)Cited 24 timesPublished
  • Cuervo v. Sorenson

    112 F.4th 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

    On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in dismissing her FAC on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants ask us to affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … We now examine the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. We conclude Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

    Cited 44 timesPublished
  • Cocroft v. Smith

    95 F. Supp. 3d 119 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2015

    Whether Officer Smith Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Officer Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from a retaliatory arrest was not clearly established at the time.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Kandi Torres, Keisha Collins, and Oliver Bell v. Michael A. McCann

    Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 9, 2016

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory … In summary, McCann has failed to carry his burden to create an issue of material fact as to whether the officials’ conduct violated any clearly established constitutional rights with regard to his First Amendment and retaliation

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Wares v. VanBebber

    231 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 2002

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … In examining the issue of qualified immunity, defendants argued that the proper inquiry was whether plaintiffs right to special feeding accommodations for Ramadan was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Thompson v. Upshur County TX

    245 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2001

    To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define “clearly established law” at the proper level of generality. Anderson v. … Thus, the issue as to sheriff Cross’s claim of qualified immunity is whether his policies were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Edward Sialoi v. City of San Diego

    823 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 2016

    Whether the constitutional right was clearly established As with the three teenagers, the background circumstances on which the defendants rely to establish qualified immunity (the officers presence in a high-crime … Thus, Sandoval’s discussion of clearly established law applies equally here.

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Krainski v. Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents

    616 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

    State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As we have previously noted, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors when the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue.

    Cited 289 timesPublished
  • Calvin B. Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., Debbie Miller

    380 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

    Qualified immunity provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The court held that the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was not proper because the officers had violated Drummond’s clearly established rights. Id. at 1062.

    Cited 415 timesPublished
  • Jason Carter v. Mark Ludwick

    139 F.4th 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

    On count two, evidence concealment in violation of due process, the court granted qualified immunity because it was an “entirely novel claim” that was not clearly established. … Carter’s argument does not survive the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Katz v. United States

    194 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1999

    On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court held that the law governing the use of force in an arrest was clearly established. … A defendant will always be entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing his or her conduct was not clearly established — the first prong of the qualified immunity defense.

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Jones v. Nolin (INMATE 1)

    District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 13, 2020

    “The purpose of the qualified immunity defense is to protect[] government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Eleventh Circuit has determined that the law is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity “only by decisions of the U.S.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Banks v. Herbrich

    90 F.4th 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

    The district court denied DFPS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that its employees were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by removing R.B. … immunity analysis asks whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the misconduct.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Baker v. Gray

    57 Mass. App. Ct. 618 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 24, 2003

    The doctrine of qualified immunity may shield State officials from liability for civil damages under this statute, so long as they are performing discretionary functions and do not violate “clearly established statutory or … Gray accordingly was entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their clearly established rights under the First Amendment and equal protection clause

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Britt v. Anderson

    21 F. Supp. 3d 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 2014

    Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional *970 rights of which a reasonable person would … Count I *974 is dismissed because Anderson did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Woolum v. City of Dallas

    District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 5, 2019

    And, through his answer, Digby asserted qualified immunity. See id., ¶¶ 2.5, 2.6, & 2.7. … See Wicks, 41 F.3d at 994; Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (“[T]his court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Schatz Schatz Family v. Gierer

    346 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2003

    Where jurisdiction is appropriate, the scope of appeal is limited to the narrow issue of whether plaintiffs have alleged a violation of "clearly established" law. See Johnson v. … Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 , 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). 4 The district court announced the proper standard for addressing qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage — whether immunity is established on the

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Aldini v. Johnson

    609 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

    Bodine was entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the “clearly established” inquiry, the question is whether the right was “so ‘clearly established’ that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

    Cited 146 timesPublished
  • Kanzler v. Renner

    937 P.2d 1337 · Wyoming Supreme Court · May 23, 1997

    The standard of qualified immunity established under our common law is distinct from the federal standard. 4 In Dar-rar v. … In his summary judgment materials, Renner bases his entitlement to qualified immunity on the federal standard, stating that he acted in good faith at all times and violated no clearly established law.

    Cited 23 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.