Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
5.95s
78 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2000
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND FALSE ARREST Government officials performing their discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … ANALYSIS For this Court to find qualified immunity for the individual officers in the case at bar, it must reach two conclusions: First, that the law governing the officers’ conduct was clearly established; and second, under
Cited 0 timesPublishedTerry L. Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler
829 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 1987
on the basis of qualified immunity. … When performing a discretionary function, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if, at the time of his conduct, it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate the plaintiffs constitutional
Cited 29 timesPublished703 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 2012
Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right. See Harlow v. … To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v.
Cited 433 timesPublished28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994
established under current law. 6 Accordingly, Vecera, Bridges, Burnett, and King are entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 10 timesPublished475 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007
does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … IV 9 * Having determined that qualified immunity is available to these officers, we next consider whether they are entitled to it. We engage in the well-established two-step inquiry specified in Saucier v.
Cited 15 timesPublished176 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 26, 1999
Defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any "clearly established" rights of plaintiff. … DISCUSSION 14 Appellants argue on this appeal that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity because their actions did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which
Cited 12 timesPublished970 F.2d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1992
In the first part of Matherne, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity because the law was not clearly established in July 1983 that a sheriff could not retaliate … The crucial difference was the analytical framework established by McBee. Id. at 759, 760. The law of McBee was clearly established in January 1988.
Cited 146 timesPublished188 F. Supp. 3d 1369 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 27, 2016
Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … Thus, there remain material questions of fact regarding whether Smith violated Moon’s clearly established constitutional rights.
Cited 3 timesPublished902 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 2, 2012
Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, 1(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce . … Even so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.
Cited 2 timesPublished991 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 20, 1998
established law for purposes of qualified immunity inquiries. … The Court notes that qualified immunity also acts to bar Plaintiffs Due Process claims because, as alleged, Plaintiffs Due Process claims are not clearly established.
Cited 0 timesPublished158 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 19, 2016
“The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3) even if the right was ‘clearly … Conducting a strip search despite a wholly unjustified lack of privacy violates clearly established law and defeats Davis’ claim of qualified immunity.
Cited 7 timesPublishedLarenzo Irvin v. Tyler Richardson
20 F.4th 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 2021
Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage liability for a discretionary act that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional -4- rights … : whether the rights at issue were clearly established.
Cited 45 timesPublished792 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1992
whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time of the alleged violation were sufficiently clear in light of … The court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that by 1982, and thus ipso facto by 1989, it was clearly established, particularly in view of North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v.
Cited 5 timesPublished676 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 31, 1987
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned
Cited 6 timesPublishedRichard Wesley v. Alison Campbell
779 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2015
If the arrest was supported by probable cause, then Rigney would be entitled to qualified immunity. If not, then qualified immunity was inappropriate and both decisions must be reversed. … Hence, qualified immunity was inappropriate, because it is clearly established that “[p]olice officers cannot, in good faith, rely on a judicial determination of probable cause when that determination was premised on an officer
Cited 422 timesPublishedRobin Akins v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Defendants
840 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1988
On the matter of immunity, the magistrate determined that the case law at that time did not clearly establish the substantive due process right to be free from arbitrary and capricious action on the part of university officials … established.
Cited 40 timesPublished146 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 11, 2001
A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from claims brought under federal law if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Moreover, Katz is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
Cited 16 timesPublished317 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 2003
The judge's qualified immunity determination followed from his conclusion that Sandin v. … Dist., 239 F.3d 246 , 250 (2d Cir.2001). 9 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity "if either (a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant
Cited 66 timesPublishedMarshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hospital
474 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 9, 2007
Nevertheless, the officers contend the district court erred in denying their post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity because no clearly established law precluded the test. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”
Cited 42 timesPublished91 N.C. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1988
The affidavit of the police officer who investigated the matter, however, clearly establishes that the decision to prosecute was made solely by the officer based upon the results of his investigation, and the principal was … of the immunity contemplated by the statute.
Cited 9 timesPublished
Ask Donna