Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
4.46s
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 29, 2026
Qualified Immunity Framework Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Murphy and Unterborn are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. 8 8 Our case law would still permit us to conclude that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity even if the law was clearly established in the
Cited 0 timesPublished390 F. Supp. 3d 714 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 15, 2019
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from *723 civil damages liability "so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly they "cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity." Booker v. S.C.
Cited 0 timesPublishedKaren Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Department City of Los Angeles James J. King Stanley A. Schott
887 F.2d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 1989
They advance two bases to support this contention: *923 (1) that probable cause to arrest was established as a matter of law; and (2) that they were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Our preceding discussion about the obvious lack of probable cause is dispositive of the qualified immunity question.
Cited 10 timesPublishedDriever v. United States of America
District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2021
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 rights of which a reasonable … Jan. 15, 1997). 7 was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes.” Daugherty v. Sheer, 891 F.3d 386, 390 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).
Cited 0 timesPublished96 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 1996
Koch moved for qualified immunity, contending that his. conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?
Cited 76 timesPublished652 F. Supp. 1517 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 13, 1987
Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes is a question of law.
Cited 0 timesPublishedThomas ex rel. Thomas v. Roberts
323 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2003
The “clear” requirement stems from the fact that the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their actions violate no “clearly established … Plaintiffs insist that “consensus or persuasive authority” from other circuits may create clearly established law.
Cited 35 timesPublishedAfrica v. City of Philadelphia
49 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 1995
If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected, to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to ‘ … qualified immunity.
Cited 101 timesPublishedJohnson v. City of Fayetteville
91 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 2015
Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit for money damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would … Nor can the court answer the second qualified immunity inquiry — whether the right was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct — in Officer Koehler’s favor. Messerschmidt v.
Cited 14 timesPublishedArt Rojas v. City of Ocala, Florida
40 F.4th 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2022
Hale’s “contact is sufficient to establish the personal and in- dividualized injury necessary for standing.” Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1280. … Be- cause the district court and the parties believed that Lemon was still shuffling about at the time, the court applied it in concluding that there was an Establishment Clause violation in this case.
Cited 6 timesPublishedAlabama Ex Rel. Graddick v. Veterans Administration
648 F. Supp. 1208 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 7, 1986
The federal defendant, VA, also raises the issue of sovereign immunity. … of such agencies, Congress’ intention to waive sovereign immunity could not be more clearly established.
Cited 7 timesPublished949 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 22, 1991
Because Vermont interprets qualified immunity as an immunity from suit, we hold that qualified immunity is a collateral right under Vermont law, and we, therefore, have jurisdiction over the Officers’ appeal. … Their actions did not violate any of Napolitano’s clearly established rights under Vermont law. We hold, therefore, that the Officers are entitled to immunity from suit on Napolitano’s state law claims.
Cited 42 timesPublished470 U.S. 1084 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 25, 1985
Reported abrogated in part, on other grounds by Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) — not on the Supreme Court's listCited 42 timesPublishedNo opinion textSmith v. Montgomery County, Md.
573 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 26, 1983
Under the defense of qualified immunity, McGuckian is “shielded from liability insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Supreme Court has stated that, in determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must “determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the
Cited 25 timesPublishedDennis O'Connor v. Rachael Eubanks
83 F.4th 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 6, 2023
Qualified immunity protects Eubanks and Stanton unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Dist. of Columbia v. … First, Vicory’s focus on individual liability supplies the wrong inquiry for qualified immunity. Under the “clearly established” prong, we should ask “what happened,” not “whom can you sue.”
Cited 9 timesPublished986 F.2d 1429 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 11, 1993
Appellant's App., doc. 11 at 2-3. 7 In reviewing the grant or denial of qualified immunity, this court must "determine whether defendants violated 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The parties naturally characterize the qualified immunity issue differently.
Cited 4 timesPublishedHunter Tillis v. Allan H. Brown, Jr.
12 F.4th 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2021
Brown’s use of deadly force was specifically circumscribed by our clearly established Fourth Amendment precedent. He therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity. A. … But for plaintiffs to overcome the bar of qualified immunity, Brown’s conduct must also have violated clearly established law.
Cited 28 timesPublishedSusan Doxtator v. Erik O'Brien
39 F.4th 852 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2022
But the Su- preme Court itself has held that Garner is “cast at a high level of generality” and therefore cannot clearly establish rights for the purposes of qualified immunity, except in the most obvi- ous cases. … Furthermore, we hold that O’Brien is entitled to qualified immunity because the right he is alleged to have violated was not “clearly established” at the time.
Cited 95 timesPublished35 F.4th 945 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2022
We have explained the qualified-immunity inquiry many times. … Powell clearly established Qualls’s rights.
Cited 32 timesPublished971 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 2020
In concluding that Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity, the panel relies solely on the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the constitutional right violated “was clearly established at the time … Yet the Pauly officers were protected by qualified immunity because of the absence of clearly established law prohibiting their conduct.
Cited 21 timesPublished
Ask Donna