Case law

Porter v. Epps

659 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2011

in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation. … We further noted that “the subjective deliberate indifference standard serves only to demonstrate the clearly established law in effect at the time of the incident.” Id. Here, we are concerned with qualified immunity.

Juan Shelton v. Brian Stevens

964 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 2020

The district court ruled that all officers except Stevens were entitled to qualified immunity. … Even so, to defeat Stevens’s defense of qualified immunity, Shelton must demonstrate that his right to be free from this particular use of force was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Jeanne Zaloga v. Borough of Moosic

841 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 2016

Mercatili now appeals, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, even if Zaloga’s allegations are true, did not violate clearly established law. … Under the high standard for “clearly established” law, that is enough to defeat the Plaintiffs’ challenge to qualified immunity. V.

People of Guam v. ELIGIO ADRIATICO

Supreme Court of Guam · Dec 13, 2024

Md. 1976) (applying Kastigar, stating, “The legislative history of this statute clearly reveals a congressional intent that a ‘statutory (claim of immunity) . . . be as broad as, but no broader than, the privilege against … [58] Here, the established principles of federal law dictate a result—the alleged unconstitutional action does not fall below a federal floor.

Anmarie Calgaro v. St. Louis County

919 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 25, 2019

Nor is it clearly established that parents have a constitutional right to manage all details of their children’s education or to obtain consultation with school officials on everyday … Because existing precedent does not clearly establish the rights that Calgaro asserts, Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011).

Orozco v. County of Yolo

814 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 24, 1993

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or if the officers could reasonably have believed that their conduct was lawful … Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that a reasonable officer possessing the same information could have believed that the conduct at issue was reasonable in light of the clearly established

Navreet Nanda v. Gerald Moss

412 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2005

ANALYSIS Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Nanda’s Clearly Established Rights Having found that Dean Moss’s alleged actions violated Dr. Nanda’s constitutional rights, Dean Moss would still be entitled to qualified immunity if Dr.

Brian Baude v. Gerald Leyshock

23 F.4th 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 27, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Baude’s right to be free from the alleged types of force was clearly established in September of 2017. See Johnson v.

Murray v. White

155 Vt. 621 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 18, 1991

It is thus hard to consider it as having created clearly established law. … To so require would undermine the very purpose of qualified immunity — allowing an official to act without fear of suit unless she should know that what she is doing is in violation of clearly established rights — because

Woodward v. Weber County

District Court, D. Utah · Mar 27, 2024

QUALIFIED-IMMUNITY ANALYSIS: CLEARLY ESTABLISHED PRONG Due to Defendant's assertion of a qualified-immunity defense, Plaintiff is burdened with showing that Defendant Sampson transgressed his clearly established … Qualified-Immunity Summary Plaintiff has not carried his burden under the second prong of his qualified-immunity requirements in that he has not shown clearly established law supports his constitutional

Henry v. Purnell

652 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 14, 2011

Henry stressed that “[i]t has been clearly established ... … Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful. Saucier v.

Chandler v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation

695 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2012

Consequently, qualified immunity is denied. We review de novo the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. See Long v. Slaton, 508 F.3d 576, 579 (11th Cir.2007). II. … violation of a clearly established law.

Jane Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights

782 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a govern- ment official from liability for damages when the official’s “conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Walker, 740 F.3d 1088, 1095–97 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a clearly estab- lished right and the district court erred in denying the de- fendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity

James E. Williams v. Nancy Anderson and S.D. Parwatikar

959 F.2d 1411 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 9, 1992

Thus, in assessing the qualified immunity claims, our concern is whether statutes or caselaw existed in August 1985 to establish clearly that a state prisoner held in a psychiatric unit had a right under the Eighth or Fourteenth … Williams’ claim for damages by the doctrine of qualified immunity; neither Nurse Anderson nor Dr. Parwatikar violated any constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Walter Dartland v. Metropolitan Dade County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Sergio Pereira

866 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1989

Pereira moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court formed the principle of qualified immunity in Harlow v. … “The words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedient of stating constitutional rights in the most general possible terms

Worley v. Ewing

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 12, 2020

established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required...”). … Because Worley’s Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible violation of any clearly established constitutional right by these defendants, I FIND that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Worley’s claims against

Harris v. City of Circleville

583 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2009

The Court, however, retains jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law. Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate *365 clearly established

Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale

7 F.3d 1552 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 1993

Defendants are, at least, entitled to qualified immunity because no facts before us show defendants violated clearly established law. See Lindsey v. … Hurley is entitled to qualified immunity because Hurley's acts, as established by the record before us, violated no clearly established law. C.

Aponte-Matos v. Toledo-Davila

135 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 4, 1998

Qualified immunity protects both federal and state officials from liability for damages in a civil rights action if "a reasonable officer could have believed [his actions] to be lawful, in light of clearly established … is qualified immunity.

Newell v. Sauser

79 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 1996

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Analysis of a claim of qualified immunity entails three steps: “(1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so ‘clearly established’ as to alert a reasonable