Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.36s
California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2025
Defendants cross-appeal, challenging the trial court’s conclusion that they lack qualified immunity. … entitlement to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEstate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex.
652 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2009
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to § 1983 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must prove Dr. Bolin violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gibson v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedMcKinney v. Huntsville Sch. Dist.
345 F. Supp. 3d 1071 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 12, 2018
Counts IV and VI: Qualified Immunity Certain government officials who are performing "discretionary functions" are immune from civil action as long as their conduct does not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Courts analyze two elements to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official violated plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established. Saucier v.
Cited 0 timesPublished37 F.3d 1505 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 1994
II 5 When qualified immunity applies, the shield from section 1983 liability for damages will be lifted only if the party's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Landrum had a clearly established constitutional right to marry, see Turner v.
Cited 1 timesPublished744 So. 2d 643 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1999
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the United States Supreme Court discussed the concept of prosecutorial immunity in the context of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit and concluded that the well-established … Qualified immunity ‘“represents the norm’ ” for executive officers ... so when a prosecutor “functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court” he is entitled only to qualified immunity.
Cited 2 timesPublished881 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2012
“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Deputies’ actions were simply not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Therefore, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference to medical care claim.
Cited 12 timesPublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2025
and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity.” … Second, we hold that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity only for judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and qualified immunity for administrative or investigative acts.
Cited 0 timesPublished774 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011
Legal Standard If absolute immunity does not apply, government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, ie., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or … Cnty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 385 (2d Cir.2003); see also Fielding, 257 Fed.Appx. at 401 (“The police officers, in turn, are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it
Cited 62 timesPublished356 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 timesPublishedBender v. General Services Administration
539 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 5, 2008
Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for constitutional torts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *713 a reasonable person … Qualified immunity protects a defendant from suits for violations only of constitutional rights that are not "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v.
Cited 13 timesPublished336 B.R. 578 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 23, 2006
“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.
Cited 3 timesPublished848 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 31, 1994
Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that Chief Donovan and Assistant Chief Graham are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have been aware. Harlow v.
Cited 12 timesPublishedJohnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District
724 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013
The reasonable officer avoids committing acts that have been clearly established as unconstitutional—for example, handcuffing a prisoner to a fence for a long period of time—as well as other, similar acts, like handcuffing … We note that the specific quantum of force involved in using a Taser was not clearly established at the time that Pirone merely threatened its use, see Bryan v.
Cited 85 timesPublishedSkehan v. Village Of Mamaroneck
465 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2006
If those facts would constitute a deprivation, the court should grant qualified immunity if (1) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant's conduct; or (2) the defendant's … The individual defendants' qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission's liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama. 38 Id. at 51 , 115
Overruled on other grounds by Appel v. Spiridon, 531 F.3d 138 (2008)Cited 29 timesPublished446 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 25, 2006
right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Trask satisfy their burdens under the first two prongs of qualified immunity analysis. Their allegations under the Fourth Amendment, if true, establish a constitutional violation.
Cited 439 timesPublished326 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2003
Cruppenink filed a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to his entry into the motel room. … The deputy’s motion for qualified immunity was also denied. That decision is the *906 subject of this appeal.
Cited 23 timesPublished118 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2024
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 would have known … We decline Appellants’ invitation to upend qualified immunity. Before delving into their case’s substance, Appellants first request that we upend qualified immunity outright.
Cited 20 timesPublishedBusiness Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa
991 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 2021
The court also granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because it concluded that the law was not clearly established. … Instead, the focus of this appeal is limited to whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that the individual defendants’ conduct violated those rights.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 17, 2022
The Court, however, did not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Orr or Rogers based on qualified immunity. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 (“If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that
Cited 0 timesUnknown44 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 1995
In order to survive a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, plaintiffs must effectively pass two hurdles: First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law. … Pollard is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. III.
Cited 7 timesPublished
Ask Donna