Case law

Cyeef-Din v. Onken

District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 6, 2021

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have been aware. … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (reaffirming that officials acting in discretionary capacities are generally entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law).

Morton v. City of Corinth, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 17, 2023

This is particularly true given that the individual Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity at an early stage of these proceedings, which requires the Court to inquire into the reasonableness of each … Miss. 2011) (noting that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right”).

Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth

309 F.3d 54 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 25, 2002

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court offered the following general guidance to courts reviewing qualified immunity determinations: "A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider . . … The deadly/non-deadly distinction is significant in the Fourth Amendment context; under clearly established law, the use of deadly force is constitutional only if, at a minimum, a suspect poses an immediate threat to police

Mark D. Jones and Theresa A. Jones v. Ron Wilhelm, Cross-Appellee

425 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials against suits arising out of their exercise of discretionary functions “as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent … Since Wilhelm’s undisputed actions represent a violation of clearly-established, constitutional rights, we find that Wilhelm enjoys no qualified immunity as to the Joneses’ warrant claim. 2.

Herrera v. The Village of Angel Fire

District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 5, 2021

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have been aware. … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (reaffirming that officials acting in discretionary capacities are generally entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law).

Arlean Brown v. Brian Elliot

876 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 21, 2017

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v. … The Supreme Court has emphasized “the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. Id.

Wilson v. City of Boston

421 F.3d 45 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 31, 2005

has shown . . . that a government official may have deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably … in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced."

Barajas v. City of Rohnert Park

159 F. Supp. 3d 1016 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 5, 2016

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages” unless a plaintiff demonstrates “(1) that the official violated a,... constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Nonetheless, the Court grants the Defendant officers qualified immunity on the narrow ground that it was not clearly established that the Randolph rule applies in the context of probation searches.

McKenney v. Mangino

873 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 6, 2017

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be sure, "the clearly established law" employed in a qualified immunity analysis "must be particularized to the facts of the case." White, 137 S. Ct. at 552 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mwimanzi v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2022

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Turning to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court concludes that there was a robust consensus of authority as of January 2019 to clearly establish that such an excessively forceful and invasive search

Eugene Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields and Officer James Keith

266 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2001

qualified immunity. … Although Sparing has demonstrated a constitutional violation, he cannot show that the violation was clearly established under the second part of the standard for qualified immunity.

Smart v. City of Wichita

951 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 26, 2020

Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Whether the alleged violation was clearly established To rebut the presumption of qualified immunity, however, Mr. Smart must also establish that the constitutional right was clearly established.

Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Rhode Island Lottery Commission

553 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Dec 16, 1982

Thus, the Court “[re-]defin[ed] the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms,” holding that officials may be immune from damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The ACLU knew months before trial that O’Connell intended to rely on the qualified immunity defense.

Montanez v. Thompson

603 F.3d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 22, 2010

We can determine whether Thompson is entitled to qualified immunity under the “clearly established” prong of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). … 12  Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

32 Fair empl.prac.cas. 747, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,753 Lino Martinez, Cross-Appellant v. El Paso County, Cross-Appellee

710 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 1983

The court below correctly concluded that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination. … The foregoing excerpt clearly reveals the error in defendant’s argument.

Spikes v. McVea

8 F.4th 428 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2021

immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law, given that the facts of this case are no more egregious than in Estelle v. … Smith, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority denies officials qualified immunity (“QI”) in defiance of Supreme Court precedent, which clearly establishes that their actions were constitutional.

Doe v. Schuylkill County Courthouse

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2024

To determine whether an official is entitled qualified immunity, a court must determine (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established. … Pa. 2015) (denying qualified immunity where “the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the right was not clearly established”).

Percy Taylor v. Joseph Ways

999 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2021

the constitutional right was clearly established at [that] time.” … Step Two: Clearly Established Law in 2011 and 2013 Under the facts asserted by Taylor and relied upon by the district court, Ernst violated clearly established law.

THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BARD v. THE CITY OF VINELAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … New Jersey State Police, 957 F.3d 165, 171–74 (3d Cir. 2020) (assessing the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis and reversing district court’s denial of

Owens ex rel. Owens v. Lott

372 F.3d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 15, 2004

Turning to the question of qualified immunity, however, the district court held that, at the time of the unconstitutional search, the right violated by defendants was not clearly established. … court’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ section 1983 action states a constitutional violation; defendants agree with the district court, of course, that the law was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.