Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.40s
District 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 timesUnknown45 F.3d 1472 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 25, 1995
In his response, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had violated clearly established law of which a reasonable police officer would have known. … Specifically, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs claims because Plaintiff failed to show that: (1) Defendants arrested Plaintiff without probable cause; (2) clearly established law
Cited 316 timesPublished49 F.4th 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 21, 2022
It does not require us to determine whether the defendants violated a “clearly established right” and, as it imposes a higher standard of care, it affords less protection than does qualified immunity. See Baldwin v. … We must still determine whether that right was clearly established.
Cited 11 timesPublishedMonroe Ex Rel. C.B.D. v. McNairy County
520 F. Supp. 2d 917 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Nov 6, 2007
When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the “contours” of the constitutionally right allegedly violated were sufficiently clear, at the time of the alleged violation … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991)) (Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit if a reasonable officer could have believed the plaintiffs arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established
Cited 5 timesPublishedMacIas v. County of Los Angeles
50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2006
violation, the right was not clearly established. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established).
Cited 2 timesPublished43 Conn. App. 387 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 1, 1996
“The Supreme Court has expressly encouraged the use of summary judgment when qualified immunity is raised as a defense. … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did
Cited 47 timesPublished990 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2013
immunity analysis and asks whether, nevertheless, qualified immunity is appropriate because the Officer Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable “in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question … As already stated, qualified immunity is a defense available to public officials performing discretionary functions “... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
Cited 6 timesPublished2015 NV 102 · Nevada Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015
Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information
Cited 0 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2023
Clearly Established Law We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … Notwithstanding the prior analysis, Zuniga and Bautista are still “entitled to qualified immunity unless” Soto demonstrated that the right in question was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedChadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital
77 Conn. App. 104 · Connecticut Appellate Court · May 27, 2003
, the qualified immunity provided by §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b and the absolute immunity provided by the common law are concurrent; that is, that “where both an absolute and qualified immunity apply, the absolute immunity trumps … judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.
Cited 6 timesPublishedWest Virginia Department of Environmental Protection v. Drema Dotson
West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 16, 2021
The circuit court stated that “[i]f Plaintiffs can prove their case, the WV DEP’s enforcement actions violated clearly established law and qualified immunity would not apply. … immunity pursuant to our well-established law.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLybrook v. Members of the Farmington Municipal Schools Board of Education
232 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 2000
When qualified immunity is raised in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing that the defendant violated clearly established law. Breidenbach v. … We held that Schuler’s free speech right under the First Amendment was sufficiently established that qualified immunity was not available.
Cited 87 timesPublished491 S.W.3d 182 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 20, 2016
The court held that the Appel-lees were immune from Rasche’s claim that they negligently failed to cancel school, reasoning that the decision whether to close Jefferson County Public Schools is clearly an act involving the … Qualified official immunity is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pled. Gomez v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedSCHROEDER v. DeKALB COUNTY Et Al.
341 Ga. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 14, 2017
Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time the action was taken.
Cited 6 timesPublished709 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 25, 2010
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 determined that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable officer in [the defendant’s] position would have known that Carey had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to
Cited 17 timesPublished629 F. App'x 52 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 22, 2015
Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages “if his conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe … Defendants do not dispute that the confiscation of Barnes’s Tsalot-Kob religious head covering was unlawful and instead argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law permitting
Cited 17 timesPublished680 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 8, 2009
The defense of qualified immunity protects an official who violated the plaintiffs federally protected right as long as the official did not violate clearly established federal law at the time he acted. Harlow v. … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity defense for a supervisor is satisfied “when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established that
Cited 3 timesPublished699 F.3d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 14, 2012
The defendants asserted qualified immunity with respect to both claims. … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the official’s actions violated a constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the action. Id.
Cited 47 timesPublished517 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008
We may only review the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that the “appeal involves the abstract or pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law. … (2) whether that right was clearly established.”
Cited 169 timesPublished382 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 16, 2010
by qualified immunity.” … Here, we move immediately to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. We therefore consider whether plaintiff’s rights were “clearly established” at the time defendants disciplined Drolett. In Garcetti v.
Cited 4 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna