Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
3.40s
Griffin v. City of Clanton, Ala.
932 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 1, 1996
Qualified immunity protects an officer where a “reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” … Because this standard establishes no bright line, qualified immunity applies unless clearly established law would inevitably lead every reasonable officer to conclude that the force used was excessive.
Cited 19 timesPublishedNelson v. Correctional Medical Services
583 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 2, 2009
immunity, arguing their actions did not violate any of Nelson’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity may protect government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , but not if their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
Cited 141 timesPublishedHaley Olson v. County of Grant
127 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 10, 2025
immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. … Though Carpenter violated Olson’s Fourth Amendment rights, the law was not clearly established at the time, thus entitling Carpenter to qualified immunity. A.
Cited 6 timesPublishedAlan D. Whatley v. Robert E. Philo
817 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1987
GEE, Circuit Judge: This § 1988 case presents the question whether the plaintiff has vitiated the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The defendants asserted their qualified immunity defense. The district court dismissed on summary judgment, 1 on the basis that Whatley had failed to overcome the immunity defense.
Cited 51 timesPublishedCannavino v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017
Williams contends that he is shielded from such claims under qualified immunity. … if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Cited 6 timesPublished224 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 1, 2016
plaintiff shows (1) the defendant’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 35 Accordingly, the qualified immunity … immunity from a claim of a First Amendment violation as such rights were not clearly established); Bell v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedErin Lincoln v. City of Colleyville, Texas
887 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2018
“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … It follows that these officers—Meeks, Scott, and Barnes—similarly were not bound by any such clearly established law. The district court correctly granted these officers qualified immunity.
Cited 25 timesPublished109 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 31, 2000
To determine whether a defendant is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify the right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … That right is clearly established. See Kelley, 60 F.3d at 667 .
Cited 3 timesPublishedAmanda Reich v. City of Elizabethtown, Ky.
945 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2019
Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … This brings me to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—clearly established law.
Cited 108 timesPublishedShemtov Michtavi v. William Scism
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 2015
Appellants appeal that order, and we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a prisoner’s right to treatment of retrograde ejaculation, infertility, or erectile dysfunction is not clearly established … She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFernandors v. District of Columbia
382 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2005
Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … Therefore, the only question for the Court is whether Officer Fenton’s alleged conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights so that he would not have qualified immunity.
Cited 36 timesPublished40 F. Supp. 3d 881 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 19, 2014
Defendants did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B. … , that right was not clearly established.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDominique Ramsey v. David Rivard
110 F.4th 860 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2024
Rivard argues that qualified immunity bars the plaintiffs’ unduly suggestive identification claim because they cannot show that Rivard’s actions violated their clearly established rights. (Appellant Br. 49.) … First, Rivard gains no immunity for violations of clearly established law by following the prosecutor’s advice. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 495 (1991).
Cited 18 timesPublished163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998
. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court’s conclusion that Greenwood’s property right in his clinical staff privileges was not *121 clearly established and … “Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under
Cited 24 timesPublished476 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2007
by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”). … To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff *404 must show that the defendant had notice that the manner in which the force was used had been previously proscribed: [T]here is no doubt that [precedent] clearly establishes
Cited 236 timesPublished966 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1992
by qualified immunity. … Did DeNieva Identify a Specific Right, and Was it Clearly Established? 21 We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes' violation of a clearly established right.
Cited 20 timesPublished751 P.2d 1345 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1988
on the qualified immunity defense. … Haley, 687 P.2d 305 at 316 (Alaska 1984), is entitled to qualified immunity unless his action violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.
Cited 28 timesPublished653 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 12, 1987
The plaintiffs, in turn, must overcome the immunity defense by showing that their allegations, if true, did violate constitutional rights clearly established at the time. … of clearly established constitutional rights.
Cited 2 timesPublished291 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 29, 2003
If so, we must subsequently ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the plaintiff does not satisfy either portion of the two-pronged test, the Court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. Gross v. … City of Laramie, 239 F.3d 1183, 1189-90 (10th Cir.2001) (finding qualified immunity for officers who hog-tied an arrestee with diminished capacity because in 1996 there was not a clearly established right to be free from
Cited 3 timesPublishedIn re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services
Supreme Court of Delaware · Aug 1, 2024
Section 1983 and Qualified Immunity. … A plaintiff’s burden under qualified immunity does not end when a constitutional violation is pinpointed; it rests on whether the official should have known that their actions violated a clearly established constitutional
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna