Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.35s
71 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 timesPublished54 F.4th 62 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 29, 2022
Qualified Immunity Public officials are immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity if sued in their individual capacities unless "(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.'"
Cited 9 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 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 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 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 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 timesPublished465 F.3d 46 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 4, 2006
Qualified immunity “shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … Id. at 321 , 71 S.Ct. 303 . 1) Plaintiffs’ Free Speech Rights Were Clearly Established.
Cited 47 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 6, 1991
Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988) (officials qualifiedly immune from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known). ¶ 13 … applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and a public official's enforcement of such a statute may well deprive that official of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 .
Cited 0 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 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 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 timesPublishedSoares v. State of Connecticut
8 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 1993
Accordingly, Konow is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. II. … that their conduct was necessarily "objectively reasonable," they can prevail on their qualified immunity defense if they can show that the rights plaintiff claims to have been violated were not "clearly established."
Cited 49 timesPublished
Ask Donna