Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
8.07s
Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor
567 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2009
matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … to determine whether it presents one of those occasions in which the rights are clearly established.
Cited 993 timesPublishedLesley v. Department of Social & Health Services
83 Wash. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 26, 1996
CASEWORKER AND STATE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We next address whether Maurer is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … To receive qualified immunity under section 1983, a state official performing discretionary functions must show that the official’s conduct "[did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which
Declined to follow by Petcu v. State, 86 P.3d 1234 (2004)Cited 48 timesPublished922 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 1991
Absent from the order was any discussion of what the clearly established law was at the time of Howell's death, an inquiry essential to a determination of immunity. … Generally Applicable Law 16 As stated above, Harlow established the test for qualified immunity.
Vacated on other grounds by Howell v. Evans, 931 F.2d 711 (1991)Cited 33 timesPublishedPaul Mollica v. James A. Volker
229 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2000
For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … whether the right is clearly established).
Cited 37 timesPublished149 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2001
The Seventh Circuit has noted in the context of qualified immunity that if the plaintiffs’ initial pleadings themselves, taken as true, fail to adequately allege the violation of any clearly established right, dismissal for … The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which
Cited 8 timesPublishedKincade v. City of Blue Springs
64 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 1995
“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Buzek v. … law, cannot be “clearly established.”
Cited 111 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2019
The Clearly Established Right The second part of the qualified immunity test requires that the constitutional right that has been violated was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity analysis.3 And at prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, the majority points to no authority clearly establishing that the Use of Force Regulation actually promulgated by the Nevada Department of
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAlaska Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2013
Fitzgerald.17 Under this standard, qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established.”27 In short, because Maness cannot show pursuant to his theory of liability that the troopers violated any of his clearly established rights, the troopers are protected by qualified immunity from Maness’s excessive
Cited 0 timesPublished806 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2015
But because the law on these points was not clearly established in this Circuit before our decision today, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment *1040 on qualified-immunity grounds to Peder-son. … In pursuit of that aim, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional
Cited 86 timesPublished843 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 10, 1994
They are shielded by qualified immunity. … Because the asserted right was found not to have been clearly established, the Gawloski court held the defendants were protected by qualified immunity.
Cited 10 timesPublished772 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 24, 2011
To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must establish “that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right.” Albright v. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Officers Whetstone and Jimenez assert the defense of qualified immunity. *1359 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability
Cited 1 timesPublishedIn Re City of Philadelphia Litigation
158 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 1998
We disagree with both contentions. 33 It is axiomatic that the qualified immunity inquiry focuses on whether an official's conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … were clearly established at the time of the official's conduct.
Cited 162 timesPublishedLena Davenport v. Borough of Homestead
870 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2017
clearly established law. … IV “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
Cited 52 timesPublished983 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1993
clearly established law.” … It is well established that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability as long as the officials could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established
Cited 87 timesPublished124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2002
The Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Governmental Immunity. … This immunity provision bars the Ogborns’ claim for trespassing because the warrant clearly authorized entry onto the Property and into the structures located there.
Cited 27 timesPublished663 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 22, 1987
to trial, and that entitlement to qualified immunity turns on "the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … been violated are all “clearly established.”
Cited 6 timesPublished26 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 1994
Even if the plaintiff's actions are constitutionally protected, public officials are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity unless the constitutional right asserted was clearly established at the time … Under Harlow, therefore, the focus of an inquiry into a defendant's qualified immunity is ordinarily the "objective reasonableness" of the official's discretionary conduct as measured by reference to clearly established
Cited 69 timesPublished669 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2009
“A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Berg v. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ” Wilson v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. New York · Sep 2, 2021
Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 231 (2d Cir. 2014) ("An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury"). … "Even if the force is objectively unreasonable, an officer may still be eligible for qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that her action did not violate clearly established law
Cited 0 timesUnknown30 F.3d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1994
Thus, to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity, Mrs. … Belcher’s death no decision had clearly established that Chief Anderson’s actions or inactions constituted deliberate indifference, he is entitled to qualified immunity. 2.
Cited 128 timesPublished
Ask Donna