Case law

Sean Rambert, Sr. v. City of Greenville

107 F.4th 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

But an officer is not entitled to “qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … But that is not how the clearly established prong of qualified immunity works. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

Anthony Martinez v. James Yates

585 F. App'x 460 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2014

There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent dictating when a trial in state court must be severed. Runningeagle v. … However, we have held that this footnote in Lane does not qualify as clearly established federal law under federal habeas law. Collins v.

The Estate of Donald Nash v. Henry Folsom

92 F.4th 746 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 9, 2024

The court then held that the right was clearly established and proceeded to deny the officers qualified immunity on Count I. … Clearly Established “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Tellier v. Fields

280 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

of clearly established rights. … Horne supports the need to address the constitutional question when a court finds that qualified immunity does not exist because the right asserted is clearly established.

Juan Hernandez v. City of San Jose

897 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 2018

Taking the allegations in the operative complaint as true, and reading them in the light most favorable to the Attendees, we find the Officers violated clearly established rights and are not entitled to qualified immunity … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Mierzwa v. City of Garfield

170 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2005

Finally, the Court found that because the State is immune from liability under § 1983, the Mierzwas’ due process claim lacks merit. … In addition, the individual Garfield defendants (police and prosecutor) enjoy qualified immunity as their conduct in investigating the incident between Edward and Thomas did not violate clearly established constitutional

Adam Saetrum v. Jake Vogt

673 F. App'x 688 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2016

Cases from this and other circuits clearly established that using a car as an impact weapon constituted at least a significant, intermediate level of force. See Young v. … The Takedown Claim With respect to the takedown claim, by contrast, Vogt’s actions did not violate clearly established law.

Daniel Chavez v. David Robinson

817 F.3d 1162 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

In this case, the panel determined that plaintiff’s complaint did not clearly show that he would be unable to overcome qualified immunity. … ROBINSON Chavez’s pro se complaint did not clearly show that he would be unable to overcome qualified immunity.

Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company v. United States of America, International Trademark Association, Amicus Curiae

86 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 1996

We start our analysis with the well-established proposition that the United States may not be sued without its consent. See Affiliated Ute Citizens v. … that the agency action had transgressed and establish that the statute or regulation applies to the United States.

Bartell v. Lohiser

215 F.3d 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 2000

No defendants may assert qualified immunity. … However, this Circuit, as well as a number of “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right has been our sister Circuits, have granted state employees qualified immunity violated; and second, we ascertain whether

Hicks v. LeBlanc

81 F.4th 497 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2023

Appellants insist they are entitled to qualified immunity because they neither violated Hicks’ constitutional rights nor acted unreasonably in light of clearly established law. We disagree. … Having established that Hicks’ right to timely release was clearly established, we turn to the first question of qualified immunity: whether _____________________ 21 U.S.

Brosseau v. Haugen

543 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 13, 2004

not entitled to qualified immunity. … We grant the petition on the second, qualified immunity question and reverse.

Martinique Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections

705 F.3d 560 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

Taken together, these sentences clearly suffice as an assertion of qualified immunity. … Dunagan focuses on whether the law regarding same- sex strip searches is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. However, No. 11-1588 Stoudemire v. Mich.

Tracy Ray Vaughan v. James D. Ricketts

859 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 14, 1988

Ricketts moved for summary judgment, claiming a qualified immunity from suit because the law governing body cavity searches of inmates was not clearly established as of March 1984. … Finally, the district court found that clearly established standards existed under the eighth and fourteenth amendments as well. The court thus refused to grant Ricketts qualified immunity on any of Vaughan’s claims.

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

952 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 2020

Without setting forth a clearly established right for which the analysis can continue, Plaintiffs have not defeated Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense. … his actions violated clearly established law.

DiMeglio v. Haines

45 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1995

“clearly established law” has an acquired meaning in the qualified immunity context referencing law at the time of the challenged conduct. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

S. B. v. County of San Diego

864 F.3d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 2017

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 9 clearly established law, so qualified immunity was not appropriate. … Moreover, even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which plaintiffs rely are insufficient.

Dejuan Hopson v. Jacob Alexander

71 F.4th 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 16, 2023

Washington therefore does not qualify as clearly established law for purposes of the qualified immunity inquiry in this case. Hopson next points to our decision in Espinosa. See 598 F.3d at 537–39. … Notably, Robinson itself granted qualified immunity to the officers because the constitutional right that had been violated was not clearly established at the time. 278 F.3d at 1015–16.

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

776 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … As discussed, the qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that the right was clearly established. Morgan v.

Teresa Graham v. Shannon Barnette

5 F.4th 872 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

She also argues that probable cause was the clearly established standard at the time, meaning the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. … The officers also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim because their seizure of Graham did not violate clearly established law.