Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.67s
Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 6, 2023
First, Iowa Code section 670.4A(1)(a) (2022) provides qualified immunity to employees or officers subject to claims arising under the IMTCA: 1. … The right, privilege, or immunity secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation the state of the law was not sufficiently clear
Cited 0 timesPublishedElec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC
552 S.W.3d 297 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 16, 2018
We quote Panda's live petition at length because it clearly identifies Panda's position. … itself enjoys"; and (4) "the policies underlying official and qualified immunity are simply irrelevant to that contention."
Cited 7 timesPublished865 F.2d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 1989
qualified immunity because their conduct in March 1983 did not violate clearly established law. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional right); State v.
Cited 60 timesPublished100 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 12, 1996
She also claims that the law was clearly established in this area, thereby precluding Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. We agree. … Because the law in this area was clearly established in March 1994, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED and REMANDED. - 15 -
Cited 27 timesPublishedBall v. Township of Silver Spring
833 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2011
Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Courts conduct a two step analysis for a qualified immunity defense: whether law enforcement’s acts violated a constitutional right, and if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the time. Mierzwa v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 28, 2023
Qualified immunity is “an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct does ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Additionally, because the law was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s actions, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown231 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2002
Raines and Rooney contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Tittle’s claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy because they did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in fight of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be -a violation of the right at issue.
Cited 3 timesPublishedHorn v. City of Seat Pleasant, Md.
57 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 1999
Id. “ ‘If the right was not clearly established at the relevant time or if a reasonable [official] might not have known that his or her conduct violated that right, the [official] is entitled to immunity.’ ” Id. … Therefore the Eight Circuit in these cases did not address the issue of qualified immunity.
Cited 9 timesPublishedBabb v. Lake City Community College
66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995
is whether the facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. … “clearly established” law.
Cited 4 timesPublishedJonathan Davidson v. City of Stafford, Texas, et a
848 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017
“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … On the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, recent Supreme Court decisions addressing claims for excessive force have “reiterate[d] the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined
Cited 217 timesPublishedJames E. Phillips, II v. WV DHHR d/b/a Mitchell Bateman Hospital
West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020
rights or laws that were clearly established and of which a reasonable person would have known or whether those actions were fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. … The circuit court applied established jurisprudence from this Court in finding that the DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublished761 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 25, 2011
Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Specifically, the doctrine applies where it is “objectively reasonable” for an official to believe that his conduct did not violate a plaintiffs constitutional rights, in light of clearly established law and in the information
Cited 8 timesPublished108 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1992
We will first address the issue of qualified immunity. … , in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’
Reversed in part, on other grounds by Fowler v. Valencourt, 334 N.C. 345 (1993)Cited 16 timesPublished446 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2006
If plaintiff sufficiently alleges a constitutional violation, defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established when the violation occurred. Id. … Clearly Established Law The issue for purposes of qualified immunity is whether Mack’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
Cited 2 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 6, 2014
and qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two part inquiry: (1) whether a public official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established
Cited 0 timesPublished190 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2002
The Supreme Court has recognized that questions of qualified immunity should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, *806 as the purpose of the doctrine of qualified immunity is to serve as a bar to suit, not … Having in mind the Supreme Court’s threshold tests for consideration of a qualified immunity claim, see Wilson v.
Cited 4 timesPublished615 So. 2d 69 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 19, 1993
The concept of qualified or substantive governmental immunity as a defense against tort liability under certain circumstances is well established in the law of this State. … Having concluded that seclusion was called for, Gibson followed established procedures.
Cited 14 timesPublishedPierce v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Department
232 Cal. App. 4th 995 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2014
” (Hafer, supra, 502 U.S. at p. 29)) or “qualified immunity.” … Haugen (2004) 543 U.S. 194, 198–201 [160 L.Ed.2d 583, 125 S.Ct. 596] [officer who shot fleeing felon entitled to qualified immunity]; Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at pp. 203–209 [arresting officer entitled to qualified immunity
Cited 26 timesPublished589 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 28, 2009
was clearly established." … In evaluating Nurse Smith’s motion to dismiss and her claim to qualified immunity, the district court found that "the general Eighth Amendment right at issue was clearly estab- lished at the time of the events alleged in
Cited 263 timesPublished366 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2005
The applicable legal standard 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 court facing qualified immunity claims ordinarily engages in a two-step inquiry.
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna