Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.76s
569 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2009
entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the violation of a constitutional right was not clearly established at the relevant time, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.
Abrogated in part, on other grounds by Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009)Cited 12 timesPublished433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 5 timesPublished147 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 2, 1998
established" to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow and its progeny. … established" to defeat Senn's assertion of qualified immunity.
Cited 37 timesPublishedSaleem Bashir v. Rockdale County, Georgia
445 F.3d 1323 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2006
Thus, Bashir has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis by demonstrating that his warrantless arrest was unlawful. 2. Clearly Established Law. … The next question we address in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.
Abrogated on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)Cited 188 timesPublishedJanice Akins v. Fulton County, Georgia
420 F.3d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2005
Clearly Established Law The final step in the qualified immunity inquiry is determining whether the law was clearly established so as to put Gates on notice that his behavior was a violation. … We based our primary holding on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.
Cited 110 timesPublished643 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jul 23, 2009
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 person … For purposes of qualified immunity, the Court must also determine whether this right to be free from unreasonable seizures was clearly established at the time of pursuit.
Cited 10 timesPublished974 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 11, 1997
immunity and, consequently, the question of whether this right was clearly established at the time Gillway acted. … qualified immunity.
Cited 15 timesPublished70 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 1995
were not in dispute. 10 Once a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity, "the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively … that the law was clearly established, Doody was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because "a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed breaching the dam was lawful."
Cited 3 timesPublished330 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2003
The law could not be more clear that an individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. … First, the plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established right.
Cited 61 timesPublished62 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 15, 2014
Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Agent Barnes is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
Cited 7 timesPublished851 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 28, 1994
Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. In determining whether Defendant Hart has established her defense of qualified immunity, the Court uses a two-prong analysis. … Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. Therefore, the Court must decide whether Hart violated a clearly established right of the Plaintiff. The Court finds that Hart did not.
Cited 6 timesPublished571 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1982
In Harlow , the Court held that presidential aides are entitled only to a qualified immunity. It then expanded somewhat the scope of the qualified immunity. … Accordingly, these individual defendants are now immune from liability unless their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDavid Allen v. Charles McClelland, Jr.
815 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2016
DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by showing “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.
Cited 53 timesPublishedPrentzel v. State, Department of Public Safety
169 P.3d 573 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007
Under federal law governing constitutional claims brought under § 1988, "a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at … To defeat the troopers' claim of qualified immunity, Prentzel must instead show that the troopers' warrantless arrest amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment under clearly established federal law governing that amendment's
Cited 44 timesPublished704 F.2d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1983
Most recently the Supreme Court refined the limits of qualified, good faith immunity, placing “[r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Under this approach summary judgment should issue on the grounds of qualified, good faith immunity if the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time the challenged
Cited 110 timesPublished851 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 1988
Since Granata’s remedy of dismissal for properly established qualified immunity remains open, mandamus is not available. I. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.
Disagreed with in part by Hallock v. Bonner, 387 F.3d 147 (2004)Cited 34 timesPublishedEspanola Way Corp. v. Murray Meyerson
690 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1982
Further, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to officials who, though otherwise covered, act with malice 1 or contrary to clearly established law. Procunier v. … Fifth, a conscious attempt to deprive property owners of property without due process of law clearly contravenes established law.
Cited 98 timesPublishedAndrade v. Board of County Commissioners
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2021
Where, as here, the defendants have asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the plaintiffs must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at … to qualified immunity.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublished405 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 2, 2005
The trial court also denied the Appellants qualified immunity. 3 On appeal, the Appellants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the decision to demote Powell was reasonable in light of clearly established … Rainey is therefore entitled to qualified immunity, because doing nothing wrong is not a violation of clearly established law.
Cited 4 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2018
App’x 479, 484 (6th Cir. 2015) (reviewing a denial of qualified immunity to determine whether a prisoner’s constitutional right was clearly established). … Indisputably, the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001); see also O’Malley v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna