Case law

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.

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.

A.M. Ex Rel. F.M. v. Holmes

830 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 25, 2016

We elect to reach only the clearly-established-law question — that is, the second prong of the qualified-immunity standard. … as the clearly established law that defeats a qualified-immunity defense.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Lawrence v. City of Rawlins, WY

406 F.3d 1224 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 6, 2005

Lawrence’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Where the law is not clearly established, courts do not require officials to anticipate its future developments, and qualified immunity is therefore appropriate.

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.

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.”

DeStafney v. University of Alabama

413 So. 2d 391 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 5, 1982

We must recognize at the outset that our cases have interpreted § 14 as affording absolute immunity to some State officials, as well as to the State itself, and extending a qualified immunity to others. … Clearly, under the guidelines of Gill and Milton , a claim for personal injury based upon the alleged negligent conduct of a State employee, even when committed in the line and scope of employment, is not within the ambit

Torcasio v. Murray

57 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 29, 1995

--was clearly established. … "In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity it is ... necessary first to identify the specific ... right allegedly violated, then to inquire whether at the time of the alleged violation it was clearly established, then further

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.

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.

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 . . .