Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.90s
816 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2016
The officers were not “plainly incompetent” and did not “knowingly violate” clearly established law when they made these arrests. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law can simply be defined” at a high level of generality. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1776, slip op. at 13 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Reversed by District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018)Cited 16 timesPublished517 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 21, 2008
DISCUSSION Qualified immunity protects public employees performing discretionary functions1 from the burdens of civil trials and from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was “clearly established” on the date of the alleged violation.
Cited 54 timesPublished44 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 1999
Failure to State a Claim and Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified Immunity Sprowl’s contention that her, liability is precluded by qualified immunity is similarly unpersuasive.
Cited 11 timesPublishedTorrez v. El Paso County Sheriff's Department
District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 16, 2021
and qualified immunity is appropriate). … July 22, 2021), the Court engaged in an extremely thorough examination of precedent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding when a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, ultimately finding
Cited 0 timesUnknown352 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 18, 2003
If the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry ends and the plaintiff may not recover. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Was the law clearly established? Breen, relying on County of Sacramento v.
Cited 171 timesPublishedWilliams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV.
763 N.W.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 31, 2009
Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Maturi, as a government official, receives the protections of qualified immunity when performing dis *655 cretionary functions unless he could reasonably be expected to recognize that his conduct would violate clearly established
Cited 7 timesPublished94 F.4th 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2024
Under the normal standards of qualified immunity, no “clearly established law” placed the officers on notice of Villarreal’s First Amendment right not to be arrested. … Even those who argue for some version of qualified immunity nevertheless disavow the clearly-established- law requirement. See, e.g., Scott Keller, Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law, 73 Stan. L.
Cited 27 timesPublished727 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 13, 1989
immunity. … Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the basis of qualified immunity is appropriate as well.
Cited 2 timesPublished336 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2004
To determine whether the defendants here are entitled to the shield of qualified immunity, I must inquire: “(1) whether the facts as alleged make out a constitutional violation; (2) whether that right was clearly established … Was the right clearly established?
Cited 2 timesPublishedJane Doe v. Gayle Bowles Richard Kemp Ronald Stratton
254 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2001
The Sixth Circuit has explained that in order for a court to deny qualified immunity to a § 1983 defendant, the plaintiff “must establish that [defendant’s] conduct violated a federal right so clearly established that any … Provided that there are no disputed issues of material fact precluding jurisdiction, qualified immunity must be granted by this court if, as a matter of law, defendants’ conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional
Cited 15 timesPublishedElmer J. Lappe v. Paul Loeffelholz, Dr. Wiedershine and Harlem Brady
815 F.2d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 1987
Keeping in mind that we are deciding the issue of the officials’ qualified immunity, and that our focus is on the question of whether Lappe’s rights were clearly established, we reject Lappe’s argument. … Loeffelholz violated Lappe’s clearly established federal constitutional rights and is not entitled to immunity.
Cited 30 timesPublished644 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2011
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 would have … federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.”
Vacated on other grounds by Hartman v. Moore, 567 U.S. 901 (2012)Cited 7 timesPublishedStidham v. Texas Commission on Private Security
418 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 2005
Because we find that the defendants deprived Stidham of his clearly established rights in an objectively unreasonable manner, we vacate the district court’s grant of qualified immunity and remand the … are persuaded that, for the purposes of overcoming qualified immunity, Stidham has properly demonstrated the violation of a clearly established right by showing that the defendants deprived him of his
Cited 36 timesPublished764 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2014
Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was … Defendants bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Vincent v. Yelick, 718 F.3d 157, 166 (2d Cir.2013).
Cited 8 timesPublished20 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 2, 1998
Qualified Immunity A party is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if the court finds that the rights asserted by the plaintiff were not clearly established or: no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence … “The right to be free of excessive force is clearly established. That there are constitutional limitations on the use of deadly force during the course of an arrest is also clearly established.” Salim v.
Cited 2 timesPublished301 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2002
Not long after Harlow , the Court refined the qualified-immunity standard by defining “clearly established” in a way that encompasses this “objective reasonableness” inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified … The doctrine of qualified immunity assumes that reasonably competent officials know clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.
Cited 18 timesPublishedSafeguard Mutual Insurance v. Miller
456 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1978
On the other hand, conduct falling within the investigative and administrative functions of these defendants is subject to a qualified immunity and they must establish their good faith in order to escape liability. … As such, he is entitled only to the qualified immunity of other executive officials, and he must establish his good faith to avoid liability. Again, this is an issue best resolved at trial.
Cited 7 timesPublishedAnthony Palmer v. Paul Richards, Ronald Goss
364 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 6, 2004
established, we conclude that the district court (Baer, J.) properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It was, of course, Richards’s burden at summary judgment to show the nonexistence of a clearly established right and his entitlement to qualified immunity. Tellier, 280 F.3d at 84 .
Cited 242 timesPublished850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988
Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity.
Cited 24 timesPublished649 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 2009
The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because: a. … clearly established.
Cited 75 timesPublished
Ask Donna