Case law

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.

Snyder v. Daugherty

899 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2012

“An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. … To this end, the Defendant Officers seek qualified immunity on the grounds that their actions were reasonable 'in light of clearly established federal 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

William Gerhartz v. David Richert

779 F.3d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 5, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con- stitutional rights of which a reasonable … was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd

563 U.S. 731 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 31, 2011

II Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly … Because Ashcroft did not violate clearly established law, we need not address the more difficult question whether he enjoys absolute immunity.

Ann B. Lovell, Etc. v. The One Bancorp, Appeal of Frederick W. Pape, Jr.

878 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 22, 1989

Pape, Jr., defendant-appellant, has filed this interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of his claim of qualified immunity. … Among the various arguments advanced in his motion, Pape argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff’s claims.

Acre v. Chambers

129 F. Supp. 3d 1295 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 8, 2015

The Supreme Court has disavowed a generalized approach to what is clearly established law in the qualified immunity context. *1311 We have repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of … Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if “clearly established” law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Sheehan , — U.S. at -, 135 S.Ct. at 1775-76.

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.

Swint v. City Of Wadley

5 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1993

by ... clearly-established law." … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Hardin v. Hayes

957 F.2d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.' Based upon the foregoing facts, Sheriff Hayes is likewise entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Burke v. Sullivan

677 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 3, 2012

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Estate of Kenneth G. Dietrich v. Richard W. Burrows

167 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 1999

If the constitutional right “the government official allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official … The law has been clearly established since at least the Supreme Court’s decision in Carroll v.

Stella v. Kelley

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 23, 1995

Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity limits a plaintiff's damages against state actors "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 . ______ The meaning of the adjectival phrase "clearly 4 established," as it operates in the qualified immunity arena, has not always been clearly established.

Daniel Chavez v. David Robinson

12 F.4th 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

Qualified Immunity Once it is established that Chavez has a cause of action under § 1983, it is clear that his claim is not barred by qualified immunity: Antelope “clearly established” the constitutional right that Chavez … Rushen, 678 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1982), clearly establishes the right Chavez asserts, and thus his right-to-counsel claim is foreclosed by qualified immunity.

Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey

162 N.J. 375 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 2000

The Court, concluding that an officer applying for a warrant is entitled to assert qualified but not absolute immunity, observed that the defense of qualified immunity provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent … Qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” that is effectively lost if the case is allowed to go to trial. Mitchell v.

Giragosian v. Bettencourt

614 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 29, 2010

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) "the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right" and (2) "the right at issue was 'clearly established' at the time … A right is "clearly established" if, at the time of the alleged violation, "[t]he contours of the right . . .

Patti Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc.

912 F.3d 887 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 3, 2019

Plaintiffs’ clearly-established due process rights. … The Court will now address the second component of the qualified immunity analysis—whether Plaintiffs’ due process rights were clearly established.  Nos. 18-1295/1296 Cahoo, et al. v.

Treadway v. Columbus Police Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2025

Qualified Immunity “shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights.” DiLuzio v. … The next step of the qualified immunity analysis asks us to determine whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Bikachi Amisi v. Lakeyta Brooks

93 F.4th 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 22, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … of qualified immunity.

McIntosh v. Weinberger

810 F.2d 1411 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 1987

The District Court expressly declined to reach the question whether Turner violated clearly established law; instead, citing Harlow’s “discretionary function” language, the District Court rejected the qualified-immunity defense … the objective test of immunity, which focuses not upon whether the official was exercising discretion, but upon whether he violated clearly established law.