Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filters1974

10,000+ results

2.64s

  • Groom v. Fickes

    966 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 2, 1997

    Qualified Immunity The plaintiff also contends that, in an investigative capacity, Clark is entitled only to the more general qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, qualified immunity shields prosecutors and other government officials from liability for money damages when performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Moya v. Schollenbarger

    465 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

    As to the first prong of qualified immunity — whether Defendants violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[],” Harlow v. … First Amendment rights As to the first prong of a qualified immunity analysis, M r. M oya’s allegations clearly implicate First Amendment rights.

    Cited 127 timesPublished
  • Brandon v. City of New York

    705 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

    Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir.1996) (“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … violated a clearly established right.”

    Cited 392 timesPublished
  • Veneklase v. City of Fargo

    904 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Feb 17, 1995

    “Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when a plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of the

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Mendoza v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

    849 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 21, 2017

    Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from civil liability so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask (1) whether the official's action violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the violated right was clearly established.

    Cited 54 timesPublished
  • Coffin v. Brandau

    614 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

    the Deputies were entitled to qualified immunity.9 On August 7, 2007, the Coffins lodged this appeal challenging the district court’s holding that no clearly established law provided fair warning to the Deputies … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door.15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.”

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

    877 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 5, 2017

    The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Maney v. Fealy

    69 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 17, 2014

    In determining whether a governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must decide “whether a constitutional violation occurred and ... whether the right violated was clearly established.” … Instead, the Fourth Circuit rested its finding for the officer on the basis, of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, finding that the officer did not violate clearly established law. Id. at 359-60 .

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Remo Benigni, Dba the Silver Fox v. City of Hemet Roger Miller Jesse Pease Scott Jernigan

    879 F.2d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 1989

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY This question is properly before the court because the individual defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis of qualified immunity and subsequently offered it as a ground for judgment NOV. … Thus we conclude that any error in the qualified immunity instruction was harmless.

    Cited 141 timesPublished
  • Donahoe v. Arpaio

    869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 9, 2012

    . § 1983 , 11 qualified immunity protects a government official from suit where that official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … of free speech rights [is] violative” of clearly established law).

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Estate of Decedent Lolomania Soakai v. Abdelaziz

    137 F.4th 969 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2025

    Because the law was clearly established before the date of the car chase that defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … While creative, this doesn’t prove clearly established law. We should have granted qualified immunity to the Officers on this new substantive due process claim.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Kim Shultz v. Bryan Buchanan

    829 F.3d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

    To defeat qualified immunity, the evidence must support a finding that Buchanan violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The entry thus did not violate Shultz’s clearly established rights.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Danley v. Allen

    540 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

    To 8 overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show a constitutional or statutory violation and also that the right violated was clearly established at the … Ct. at 1085. 18 Having established a constitutional violation, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis usually is to determine whether the right was clearly

    Overruled on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (2010)Cited 196 timesPublished
  • Scheuerman v. City of Huntsville, Al

    499 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jul 23, 2007

    Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263 , 1268 *1215 (11th Cir.1999) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ). 84 In analyzing a qualified immunity defense, district courts are to consider only the “clearly established law and … The law can be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “only by decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose.”

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Bittakis v. City of El Paso

    480 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2007

    When defendants claim qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Williams v. … Qualified immunity for the officers turns on whether “a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the ... officers possessed.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Foster v. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services

    736 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 13, 2013

    was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." … We conclude that placing Essie Foster on the disqualification list in these circumstances was not a deprivation of the Fosters' clearly established due process rights and that Hansen and Watkins are thus entitled to qualified

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Olzinski v. MacIona

    714 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 7, 1989

    QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on the claims for money damages because they “could not have reasonably known that their conduct violated any well established … Once the issue of qualified immunity is properly injected into a case by a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the allegedly “clearly established” constitutional right

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Goldsmith v. Snohomish County

    558 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 15, 2008

    Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity is an immunity from suit). Saucier established a two-step analysis of qualified immunity. … At step two, immunity attaches if the officer was reasonably mistaken and/or if the constitutional right was not clearly established. 1.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • McCray v. Lee

    963 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2020

    They argued that the Complaint failed to state a claim under the 2 Eighth Amendment; that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that 3 no such Eighth Amendment rights had been clearly established; … Qualified immunity shields 2 officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 4 would

    Cited 91 timesPublished
  • Kies Ex Rel. Kies v. City of Lima

    612 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2009

    Qualified Immunity Officers Ricker and Green assert qualified immunity in response to Kies’ § 1983 claims. … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

    Cited 5 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.