Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
6.47s
211 F.3d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 11, 2000
defendants qualified immunity on this claim.” … The district court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had alleged a clearly established denial of due process. 56 Smith v.
Cited 103 timesPublished71 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 1995
Qualified immunity requires "a two-part analysis: 1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?" Act Up! … "[I]n the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes, Capoeman v.
Cited 0 timesPublished730 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 18, 2013
In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must decide (1) whether the defendant has violated a constitutional .right of the plaintiff and (2) whether that right was clearly established … Rather, in consider *394 ing whether constitutional rights were clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes, we view the issue from “the layman’s perspective,” Ross v.
Cited 186 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 13, 2026
“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 … Wodnicki, 123 F.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining that an official is entitled to qualified immunity “if, at the time he acted, he reasonably could have determined that his actions did not violate clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedElizabeth Carley v. Romeo Aranas
103 F.4th 653 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 3, 2024
Aranas was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law rendered the HCV policies unconstitutional at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity because they violated no clearly established law”).
Cited 16 timesPublishedMatusick v. Erie County Water Authority
757 F.3d 31 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 25, 2014
Clearly Established. … established — the defendants have never argued this basis for qualified immunity.
Cited 256 timesPublishedJerry M. Stanley v. City of Dalton, Georgia
219 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2000
11 interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity where the disputed issue is whether the official’s conduct violated clearly established law. … immunity analysis of whether the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law.”
Cited 133 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2017
As the Supreme Court has explained, the qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: In order to deny qualified immunity, the facts must establish a violation of a constitutional right, and that right must have been “clearly … III The panel opinion directly contravenes the qualified immunity principles relevant to the “clearly established” inquiry.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBrent James Nash v. Austin Bryce
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2025
Clearly Established Right To overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Nash ordinarily would need to show that it was “clearly established” in April 2021 that the defendants’ use of force would violate … Op. 29–30 (holding that the officers “forfeited the clearly established prong of their qualified immunity defense by failing to meaningfully contest the issue”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMariano v. Borough of Dickson City
40 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014
“A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. … They do not indicate what exactly they believe is not “clearly established” in law such that qualified immunity is appropriate, but simply assert that the doctrine applies.
Cited 3 timesPublished273 F.3d 56 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 19, 2001
In a published opinion dated June 1, 1999, Judge Wexler granted Shain partial summary judgment establishing that the strip search policy was unconstitutional and that Jablonsky was not entitled to qualified immunity. … We also found in Wachtler that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law did not clearly establish whether Wachtler’s conduct was sufficient to trigger a reasonable suspicion.
Questioned by Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149 (2013)Cited 103 timesPublished643 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2011
Deputy Spielman moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … BACKGROUND FACTS “We review de novo the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010).
Cited 73 timesPublishedTempel v. School District of Waukesha
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 20, 2023
of clearly established law.” … Dismissal based on qualified immunity is not appropriate at this juncture. Tempel’s complaint alleges a violation of a constitutional right and this right was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ actions.
Cited 0 timesUnknownWesley Brayman, Debra Brayman v. United States of America, Mark Shepherd
96 F.3d 1061 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 1996
Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We conclude that because the Braymans failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Shepherd is entitled to qualified immunity on all of their Bivens claims.
Cited 18 timesPublished523 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 22, 2008
York’s clearly established constitutional rights. 1 The district court denied qualified immunity with respect to Mr. York’s § 1983 claims. … However, because qualified immunity entitles the defendant to avoid litigation, “we have jurisdiction [on appeal] to review purely legal questions that arise from the denial of qualified immunity.” Perez v.
Cited 144 timesPublished831 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 28, 2011
Therefore, the burden shifts to Abella to demonstrate that Simon violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified immunity defense. … Therefore, the burden again shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that Defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified immunity defense.
Vacated in part, on other grounds by Gustavo A. Abella v. Officer Hector Valls, 482 F. App'x 522 (2012)Cited 4 timesPublished344 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 21, 2004
Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded *478 from liability for civil damages 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and must be plead by the respondent. See Gomez v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedDoe v. Connecticut Department of Child and Youth Services
911 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 1990
Neither circumstance defeats the defense of qualified immunity on the facts of this case. … The removal remained objectively reasonable when it was undertaken. 6 We agree with Judge Dorsey, for the reasons set forth in his opinion, that the undisputed facts establish the availability of the qualified immunity defense
Cited 15 timesPublished230 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2017
And “[a]n officer is entitled to qualified immunity ... if he can establish that he had ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest the plaintiff,” which requires the officer to demonstrate “either (a) it was objectively reasonable … And because Defendants have raised qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, they must demonstrate that facts establishing arguable probable cause are “clear from the face of the [SAC].” Rahman v.
Cited 10 timesPublishedHayes Williams and Arthur Mitchell v. David C. Treen, Governor of the State of Louisiana
671 F.2d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 1982
Damage Claims And The Qualified Immunity Defense: Was There A Violation Of Clearly Established Law? Qualified immunity is unavailable to those 1983 defendants who violate “clearly *898 established” law. 10 Procunier v. … We must determine whether 1983 defendants are entitled to the protections of a qualified immunity when there has been a violation of clearly established state law.
Cited 88 timesPublished
Ask Donna