Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.95s
445 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 20, 2006
It denied qualified immunity to Brooks and Hanson on the basis of Giles v. … If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.
Cited 50 timesPublished102 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 1997
Once again, under the clearly established law of Ybarra v. … inspection at that location did not violate clearly established law.
Cited 6 timesPublishedMcDay Ex Rel. McDay v. City of Atlanta
740 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 1990
Qualified Immunity Officers Cartwright and Price move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … The qualified immunity defense first recognized by the Supreme Court in Pierson v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedSears v. Bradley County Government
821 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 26, 2011
Even if a government official deprives a plaintiff of a federal right, “qualified immunity will apply if an objective reasonable officer would not have understood, by referencing clearly established law, that his conduct … is entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 2 timesPublishedAlan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015
Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)
Cited 0 timesPublished163 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2001
.-, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001), where the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity should be granted on the excessive force claim in that case because the plaintiff had not “identified any case demonstrating a clearly established … The panel found that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force he used was unlawful.
Cited 1 timesPublished2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1809 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2001
Defendants sought dismissal on several grounds including qualified immunity, laches, and failure to state a claim. … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have
Cited 10 timesPublished671 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 30, 2009
Swofford’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Swofford’s rights were clearly established. 471 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985). Mr.
Cited 6 timesPublished286 P.3d 138 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2012
/d. [114] In order to establish a claim of qualified immunity, the claimant must prove; 1) the officer was acting within the seope of his or her duties; 2) the officer was acting in good faith; 3) the officer's acts were … record when a public official asserts qualified immunity.
Cited 14 timesPublished962 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2013
However, to find a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond debate.” … If a right is clearly established, an officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s “actions were not objectively unreasonable at the time they were taken.” Lee v.
Cited 23 timesPublishedCalnimptewa v. Flagstaff Police Department
200 Ariz. 567 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 28, 2001
We said it would be absurd to deny immunity for a failure to stop which, if made, could have resulted in a failure to arrest which would clearly have been immunized. … against the public defendants only if the plaintiffs established gross negligence.
Cited 10 timesPublishedMartel v. Metropolitan District Commission
275 Conn. 38 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 16, 2005
Because the parties in the present matter assume that the immunity provided by § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) is identical to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts at common law, we also assume, without … and qualified immunity; (2) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 25-43c; (3) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557g; (4) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557j; and (5) the plaintiffs own
Abrogated on other grounds by Ventura v. Town of E. Haven, 330 Conn. 613 (2019)Cited 49 timesPublishedAmnesty International, USA v. Battle
484 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 24, 2007
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates “clearly established … The purported right Amnesty seeks to invoke in order to pierce Defendants’ qualified immunity here is not as clearly established as the rights invoked by the arrested protestors in Jones .
Cited 0 timesPublishedParks v. City of Warner Robins, Ga.
841 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 14, 1994
Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. A.
Cited 4 timesPublishedChristopher P. ex rel. Norma P. v. Marcus
915 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 27, 1990
, because the EAHCA’s applicability was not clearly established at the time the action arose. … Qualified Immunity for Violations of the EAHCA “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
Cited 33 timesPublishedMONTEILH v. County of Los Angeles
820 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 12, 2011
Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity for monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that a reasonable public officer would have known … “whether the right was clearly established.”
Cited 17 timesPublished109 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1997
Public officials alleged to have committed civil rights violations are entitled to raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The defense is not available, however, if the official's conduct violates a federal right that was clearly established at the time of the infringement. See Harlow v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedMatusick v. Erie County Water Authority
774 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011
Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity as a matter of law was that the First Amendment right to intimate association was not clearly established for dating, as opposed to married, relationships when their alleged acts … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity is the most difficult one to understand, because they never identified what they were doing that required qualified immunity for racial slurs.
Cited 7 timesPublished615 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2010
No. 10-1213 7 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … established Fourth Amendment rights and thus deprives the defendant of qualified immunity.
Cited 110 timesPublished402 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 2008
his defense of qualified immunity. … And he acknowledged the Court's two-part test for qualified immunity: 1) the officer violated a constitutional right of a plaintiff, and 2) that right was "clearly established." Saucier v.
Cited 25 timesPublished
Ask Donna