Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters2012

10,000+ results

4.13s

  • Kirby Ingram v. Louis Kubik

    Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2022

    If a defend- ant advances the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the dis- trict court must dismiss any claims that fail to allege a violation of clearly established law. See id. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show either that there was some constitutional violation or that it was clearly established, and we may consider these two elements in either order

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Brewster v. Shasta County

    27 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

    in which the determination of qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of material fact.” … “clearly established right” violated by their suggestive conduct in relation to the photo array and live lineup.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Rhodes v. Robinson

    408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

    Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) ("[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that "the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes."

    Cited 2,103 timesPublished
  • Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge

    821 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 1993

    The lack of precise factors does not establish Defendants’ qualified immunity. … If an official subject to qualified immunity could claim that a right is not “clearly established” because the right contains limitations or has some uncertain areas of application, then an official would always be immune

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Edwards v. Quiros

    986 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 27, 2021

    Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages as long as the officials’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … a reasonable person would have known.” 1 Because the district court found that prisoners do not have a clearly established right “to recreate free from restraints,” it granted qualified immunity to the defendants. 2

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Axson-Flynn v. Johnson

    356 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 3, 2004

    “Qualified immunity shields public officials from [section] 1983 liability if their actions did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Because the law is clearly established and there exists a material factual issue as to the objective reasonableness of Defendants’ actions, the qualified immunity defense to the free speech claim must fail on summary judgment

    Cited 120 timesPublished
  • C.B. v. Sonora School District

    691 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 22, 2009

    Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity serves to shield 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

    Cited 24 timesPublished
  • Crowley v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Village of Southampton

    872 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1995

    The Complaint should be Dismissed Against the Individual Defendants on the Basis of Qualified Immunity. … A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his or her conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Elba Estrada-Adorno v. Jose R. Gonzalez, Etc.

    861 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 10, 1988

    He is immune unless, at the time he took action, the right at issue was clearly established. Anderson v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (state official is immune from damages liability unless his action violates a right that was “clearly established” at the time the action

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Erickson v. Hunter

    932 F. Supp. 1380 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 10, 1996

    DISCUSSION (1) Qualified Immunity Defendant Don Hunter raises the issue of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity will shield public officials performing discretionary functions only to the extent that their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Aczel v. Labonia

    92 F. App'x 17 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 12, 2004

    facts plaintiff invokes constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of the event. … established at the time.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Knight Ex Rel. Kerr v. Miami-Dade County

    856 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2017

    As this Court has often observed, “qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … “[T]o receive qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

    Cited 186 timesPublished
  • Villagrana v. Kernan

    District Court, N.D. California · Jun 12, 2025

    immunity grounds. … Under Ninth Circuit law, qualified immunity is not 4 available to private defendants in a section 1983 suit. Danielson v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Bradford v. Wiggins

    516 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

    If so, we must then determine *1196 whether the right was clearly established. Id. … right was clearly established.

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • Mahoney v. Hankin

    844 F.2d 64 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1988

    clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue.” … In evaluating Hankin’s qualified immunity defense to these allegations, we must assess the “objective legal reasonableness” of his actions “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [those actions

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • David Kenyon v. Clayton Edwards

    462 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 7, 2006

    We find that Edwards is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A. The Qualified Immunity Analysis Saucier provides the marching orders for courts considering qualified immunity claims. … If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Alberto F. Morales v. James Haynes and Virginia Perez, Revenue Officers of Irs

    890 F.2d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 9, 1989

    We hold that the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendants violated any “clearly established” right and that the defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We therefore reverse. … established” as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. 702 F.2d at 584 .

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Velharticky v. Independent School District No. 3 of Roger Mills County

    846 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 17, 1993

    Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff. 2 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is available to government officials unless they violate clearly established statutory … Clearly, the board members receipt of complaints and other investigative activities does not violate a clearly established law.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC

    245 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

    Such a prohibition in no way threatens the continued existence of those medical marijuana businesses that qualify for limited immunity. … After explaining that Proposition D will ban all medical marijuana businesses unless they qualify for immunity, and after summarizing the conditions for immunity, the impartial summary describes the specific exemptions from

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez

    585 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 29, 2009

    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 … "In administering the Court’s test, this circuit has tended to list separately the two sub-parts of the 'clearly established' prong along with the first prong and, as a result, has articulated the qualified immunity test

    Cited 107 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.