Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.84s
40 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 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 timesPublishedHaggerty v. Texas Southern University
391 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2004
Jurisdiction over this Appeal “Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly … established law.”
Cited 185 timesPublished625 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 2, 1986
The term "qualified immunity" has often been used interchangeably with the term “good faith immunity." … The defendants must therefore be immune if their exercise of this discretion did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. 10 .
Cited 8 timesPublishedHassan Ex Rel. Hassan v. Lubbock Independent School District
55 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 1995
Questions of law are reviewed ... de novo."5 In examining the claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment, we first inquire whether Hassan has alleged "the violation of a clearly … The determination whether a right is "clearly established" is a more particularized inquiry than Hassan suggests; otherwise, plaintiffs could "convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified
Cited 108 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 timesPublishedGlorianna Moore v. Oakland County, Mich.
126 F.4th 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 2025
qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity spares officers from “the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions” unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights. Hagans v. Franklin Cnty.
Cited 32 timesPublished584 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 2009
clearly established law.” … “Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Id.
Cited 58 timesPublishedIn Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation
874 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1995
of a qualified immunity defense. … The task of determining what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity has been accurately labeled a “labyrinth”. See Long v. Norris, 929 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir.1991).
Cited 40 timesPublishedBloem v. Unknown Department of the Interior Employees
920 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2013
“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 … Herman, 983 F.2d 107, 110 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding a “clearly established liberty interest” for qualified-immunity purposes where trial court had issued order suspending defendant’s prison sentence, and finding it “not
Cited 11 timesPublishedNAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose
District Court, N.D. California · Aug 3, 2023
Emmons, 139 S.Ct. 500, 27 503 (2019). 1 district framed the relevant qualified immunity question as “whether it was clearly 2 established that an officer … immunity on the ground that the law is not clearly 16 established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · Feb 22, 2021
“Waiver is a matter of law where the material facts and circumstances are undisputed or clearly established.” Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Hampton, 227 So. 3d 1138, 1141 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Bott v. … 9 judgment based upon a qualified immunity affirmative defense.
Cited 0 timesPublished470 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 25, 2007
To decide a defense of qualified immunity, I must first determine whether the agent has violated a particular constitutional right and if so, next proceed to decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of … Even assuming that the seizure was not supported by probable cause, Bonaventura is still entitled to qualified immunity so long as the seizure did not violate a clearly established right of which an objectively reasonable
Cited 0 timesPublishedZia Trust Co. Ex Rel. Causey v. Montoya
597 F.3d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 9, 2010
However, we review -5- summary judgment motions raising qualified immunity differently because “qualified immunity shields government officials . . . from liability for damages … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to
Cited 68 timesPublished109 Idaho 656 · Idaho Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1985
If the law was clearly established, the *666 immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … The United States Supreme Court in Harlow has established a threshold test that must be met by the plaintiff, if the defendant has asserted the affirmative defense of a qualified immunity, before a defendant’s motion for
Cited 18 timesPublished144 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 2015
Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Qualified Immunity This Court has previously held that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 63 Defendants had argued that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not “clearly established” at the time those rights
Cited 7 timesPublished17 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 1994
To withstand a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish: (1) an alleged violation which implicates clearly established law, and (2) facts sufficient to create a genuine … require action in situations not implicating clearly established rights.
Cited 69 timesPublishedRobbin Amanda Bayse v. Ted Philbin
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2025
Although the magistrate judge acknowledged that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Utah · Apr 30, 2024
Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … Even when government officials violate the law, qualified immunity shields them from damages liability unless the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownHeitschmidt v. City of Houston
161 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1998
clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) allege conduct that is objectively unreasonable. … With regard to his unlawful detention claim, Heitschmidt asserts his clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizure of his person, a right which he maintains includes the clearly established right to be free
Cited 73 timesPublished
Ask Donna