Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.24s
901 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 12, 1995
Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … For qualified immunity purposes, however, the record is sufficient to hold that, even if the speech is ultimately decided to be protected, that right was not clearly established in 1992 and 1993.
Cited 26 timesPublishedCheyenne Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Schs.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2025
So, unless Johnson has stated a legally viable claim of a violation of a clearly established right, with supporting precedent, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity. … He did not raise a “clearly established” argument at all, nor did he argue any aspect of qualified immunity based on X.M.’s facts.
Cited 0 timesPublished605 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 24, 2010
was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Clearly Established Law Deputy Burkhalter entitles a section of his opening brief, “A Reasonable Person in Defendant’s Position Would Not Have Recognized That Deputy Burkhalter’s Actions Violated a Clearly Established
Cited 12 timesPublished827 F. Supp. 1558 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 9, 1993
Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Thus, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on Count III because they did not violate clearly established law. 4. The Right to Equal Protection Under the Law.
Cited 3 timesPublished6 F. Supp. 2d 292 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1998
Qualified Immunity ' Defendants contend that summary judgment should be entered in their favor based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of Friedland. … “Unless the plaintiffs 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 15 timesPublishedSullivan v. United States Postal Service
944 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 5, 1996
Qualified Immunity Defense It is clear that summary judgment must be granted as to Brown on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official if it is objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Russell v.
Cited 10 timesPublishedJackson v. Texas Southern University
997 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 3, 2014
“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’ ” Kinney v. … The officer is “entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions,” even if the conduct violated the
Cited 22 timesPublishedWilkerson v. University of North Texas ex rel. Board of Regents
223 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 30, 2016
Qualified and Official Immunity Defendants assert qualified and official immunity with regard to all of Plaintiffs claims against the Individual Defendants. … Seitz, the Sixth Circuit held that an engagement was not a clearly established right that could overcome qualified immunity. 38 F.3d 264, 275-76 (6th Cir. 1984).
Reversed on other grounds by Wilkerson v. University of North Texas Ex Rel. Board of Regents, 878 F.3d 147 (2017)Cited 14 timesPublishedMorinville v. Old Colony Cooperative Bank
579 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 10, 1984
conduct not previously identified as unlawful____ If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … the rule could be deemed to not have been clearly established.
Cited 2 timesPublishedChiu v. Plano Independent School District
339 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2003
However, the qualified immunity doctrine only protects officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Objective Reasonableness Although Davis and Criswell violated Kirke and Johnson’s clearly established rights, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were objectively
Cited 37 timesPublished997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993
Baldwin County Bd. of Educ., 908 F.2d 1499 , 1509 (11th Cir.1990). 6 The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established … a claim of violation of clearly established law.
Cited 21 timesPublished557 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2007
When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (I) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … up the clearly-established issue.
Cited 3 timesPublished2017 DNH 210 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 27, 2017
This argument is a nonstarter, however, as the Supreme Court has made clear that in order to defeat qualified immunity, the clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based. … Whereas qualified immunity analysis typically focuses on whether the underlying right was clearly established during the relevant period, see, e.g., Belsito Commc’ns, Inc. v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedAir Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper
320 P.3d 830 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 19, 2012
Qualified immunity is based upon a conception that "where [a public] official's duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action … Federal qualified immunity is therefore immunity from suit, rather than merely a defense to liability. Id.
Reversed on other grounds by Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 134 S. Ct. 852 (2014)Cited 13 timesPublished66 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1995
Moreover, defendants' actions at that time must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law; otherwise, those actors are entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when the qualified immunity defense is based on a showing that an asserted right was not clearly established since the inquiry as to whether a right was or was not clearly established
Questioned by Arce v. Walker, 139 F.3d 329 (1998)Cited 98 timesPublished662 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 17, 1987
Discussion Qualified Immunity of Government Officials Harlow v. … The answer is that it certainly was not clearly established.
Cited 2 timesPublishedLouise Arnold v. Charles McClinton
112 F.4th 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024
“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v. … In these circumstances, we conclude that Deputy McClinton is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct in this case did not violate McDaniel’s clearly established rights. See Plumhoff v.
Cited 6 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2025
DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. … Our caselaw does not clearly establish that a few hours without a flushing toilet violates the Eighth Amendment, so we affirm the grant of qualified immunity as to these claims. C.
Cited 0 timesPublished900 S.W.2d 874 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 22, 1995
We address the trial court’s denial of summary judgment of the deputies’ qualified immunity defense and the County’s sovereign immunity defense based on the deputies’ qualified immunity claim. … "Qualified immunity” is one of several interchangeable terms (including “quasi-judicial immunity," "discretionary immunity,” "official immunity,” and "good faith immunity”) used to refer to an affirmative defense available
Cited 26 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 27, 2023
An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id. … Nov. 16, 2022) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense regarding clearly established law for § 1983 malicious prosecution claims); Crider v. Williams, No. 21-13797, 2022 WL 3867541, at *8 (11th Cir.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna