Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
5.49s
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2025
qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, this Court applies that doctrine to state officers when considering federal law violations and will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a
Cited 0 timesPublished151 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, D. Nevada · Dec 7, 2015
Qualified Immunity under Section 1983 Qualified immunity-shields state actors from monetary liability under *1132 § 1983 unless (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish a violation of the plaintiffs constitutional … rights and (2) the constitutional right in question was “clearly established” when the alleged misconduct occurred. 49 A state official enjoys qualified immunity if she “reasonably believes that [her] conduct complies with
Cited 2 timesPublished166 Conn. App. 685 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 5, 2016
plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant’s motion in which it contended that neither qualified immunity, governmental immunity, nor absolute immunity barred its claims against the defendant given the intentional nature … 52-557n (c), which provides qualified immunity for uncompensated members of munici- pal commissions and boards.
Cited 10 timesPublished2011 DNH 008 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 13, 2011
Garrison is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged “‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
Cited 0 timesPublished166 Vt. 566 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 11, 1997
The protection from suit afforded a state employee such as defendant is qualified, not absolute: defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if he was “(1) acting during [his] employment and acting, or reasonably believing … As a general matter, good faith exists if the “official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” Murray v.
Cited 24 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 2026
JOHNSON 3 meaningful opportunities for recreation was clearly established. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages” when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
Cited 0 timesPublished342 S.W.3d 866 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2011
application of “qualified official immunity.” … Qualified Official Immunity from Tort Liability Turner also argues that she is entitled to “qualified official immunity” from suit.
Cited 29 timesPublished912 F.3d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 2018
Qualified immunity, again, was not available because the right to be free from punitive detention was already clearly established at the time. Id. at 707. … Once again, qualified immunity was not justified, the Court said, because the right against retaliation was clearly established at the time. Id. at 711-12.
Abrogated by Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022)Cited 275 timesPublished305 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2003
Are the Detectives Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … Coughlin, 137 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir.1998) (reversing grant of qualified immunity where the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, but there was some doubt as to whether a “reasonable official would
Reversed in part by Vives v. City of New York, 405 F.3d 115 (2004)Cited 23 timesPublished106 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997
51 We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes."
Cited 205 timesPublished3502 Partners LLC v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
2026 NY Slip Op 01118 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 2026
Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit ( see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc. , 74 AD3d 499, 499-500 [1st Dept 2010]). … In any event, defendants have failed to make a sufficient showing that all of them would be immune from punitive damages, and there is no dispute that one of them — Tutor Perini Corporation — does not qualify as a public
Cited 0 timesPublished148 F. Supp. 3d 395 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2015
The right in question was clearly established, such that qualified immunity is unwarranted. ‘ Defendants argue that Officer Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right allegedly violated was not … clearly established at the time Officer Jones acted.
Cited 14 timesPublishedCity of Prosser v. Teamsters Union Local 839
Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 19, 2022
Martin, 195 F.3d 1208, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that the relevant law was “clearly established” in the post-October 1994 time frame for purposes of defendant’s claim of qualified immunity); cf. Sampson v. … and by officials acting under color of state law. 7 Article I, section 12 states: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities
Cited 0 timesUnpublished98 F.4th 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024
Even though Plaintiff has shown a genuine issue of material fact that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right, Defendant may still receive qualified immunity if the right alleged was not clearly established … Thus, controlling precedent clearly established Plaintiff’s violated right at the time of the violation and Plaintiff has satisfied both requirements to defeat a claim of qualified immunity at summary judgment.
Cited 2 timesPublished689 F. Supp. 874 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 27, 1988
The Court has carved out a qualified immunity for government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Therefore, the defense of qualified immunity is not available to defendants. See Forrester v.
Cited 49 timesPublishedJarvis v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE
227 W. Va. 472 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2010
Postponing review of a ruling denying immunity to the post-trial stage is fruitless ... because the underlying objective in any immunity determination (absolute or qualified) is immunity from suit. … How could any court ever conclude that the general concepts of negligence do not constitute clearly established law?
Cited 29 timesPublishedJacob Todd, etc. v. John R. Smith
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 10, 1997
At this early stage, qualified immunity would be granted only if immunity is established on the face of the complaint. Id. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (whether federal right has been violated is "necessary concomitant" of whether right was clearly established and objectively discernible).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEast Coast Novelty Co., Inc. v. City of New York
809 F. Supp. 285 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 1992
clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … But, [e]ven where the law is “clearly established” and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is “clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him
Cited 8 timesPublished381 F. Supp. 3d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 2019
The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis examines whether a police officer's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time that the conduct occurred. … In consequence, the Fourth Circuit held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for seven of the Taser shocks because he had violated the clearly established constitutional right of an arrestee to be free
Cited 8 timesPublishedCrawford v. Columbus State Community College
196 F. Supp. 3d 766 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 2016
Qualified Immunity The defendants’ qualified-immunity argument similarly lacks merit. 3 Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established law supporting Crawford’s attempt to assert an age discrimination claim … Accordingly, the Court will only address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether that right was "clearly established.”
Cited 8 timesPublished
Ask Donna