Case law

Williams v. Borrego

5 F.4th 1129 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 2021

Williams has overcome qualified immunity. To overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, Mr. … Williams has adequately alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, he has overcome qualified immunity.

Cory D. Chan, Cross-Appellee v. Edward S. Wodnicki, Individually and in His Former Capacity as Deputy Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department

123 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 29, 1997

It held that he was *1008 entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Officer Chan’s transfer, it was not clearly established that the transfer constituted a burden sufficiently grave to constitute an infringement … The official is entitled to this immunity if, at the time he acted, he reasonably could have determined that his actions did not violate clearly established law. See Anderson v.

Zappala v. Albicelli

954 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 1997

The qualified immunity standard requires a two-prong inquiry. The first prong inquires whether the right claimed to have been violated was clearly established at the time the Defendants acted. … Clearly Established Prong The purpose of the first prong of the qualified immunity test is to ask whether the Defendant official should have been on notice that his conduct could implicate a “clearly established” constitutional

JAMES BY AND THROUGH JAMES v. Unified School Dist. No. 512

959 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 1997

The focus of both motions is qualified immunity; however, before discussing qualified immunity, the court first must examine whether the plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim under § 1983. See Kaul, 83 F.3d at 1213 . … Meeks, 52 F.3d 1547, 1552 (10th Cir.1995) (citations omitted) When a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred and must come

Dahn v. Amedei

867 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 14, 2017

We apply a special standard of review when defendants assert a qualified- immunity defense. See Koch v. … “Qualified immunity protects governmental officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Herrera v. City of Albuquerque

674 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 19, 2008

Second, Plaintiff contends that Officer O’Brien is not entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of Plaintiffs arrest, it was clearly established “that an arrest not supported by probable cause is unlawful.” … While it is clearly established that arrest without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Court cannot deny qualified immunity to Officer O’Brien by applying the “clearly established law” test at this

Flores v. Henderson

101 F.4th 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 14, 2024

The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding Officer Henderson recklessly created the need to use deadly force in violation of clearly established law, … Jackson’s Fourth Amendment rights under clearly established law and are entitled to qualified immunity.

Rodney Brown v. Matthew T. Boettigheimer

40 F.4th 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

Beringer, we expressly stated that the issue of arguable probable cause is properly part of the resolution of qualified immunity’s second prong, the clearly established prong. … Notably, the Supreme Court has also treated the doctrines of actual probable cause and arguable probable cause as pertaining to the qualified immunity analysis this way, finding that the law was not clearly established and

Fleming v. Sharma

605 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant acting in the course of his official duties is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right violated was not clearly established at the time of his conduct. Pabon v.

Richard Feliciano-Angulo v. Hon. Hector Rivera-Cruz, Etc.

858 F.2d 40 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 30, 1988

Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), and that, because he violated no clearly established law, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … As both the law and the uncontroverted facts fail to indicate that defendant Rivera Cruz violated clearly established law regarding the due process procedures owing to plaintiff, Rivera Cruz is clearly entitled to qualified

Blueford v. Prunty

108 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 1997

This court applies a two-part test to an asserted qualified immunity defense: The first question is whether the right at issue is clearly established and stated with particularity_ The second question is .whether the official … (finding no qualified immunity where cases “clearly” set out the premises of a particular clearly established right).

Christian Longoria v. Pinal County

873 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 10, 2017

Clearly Established Right We next proceed to the second question in assessing qualified immunity: whether the right at issue was clearly established. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because there is a material issue of fact as to whether Rankin violated Longoria’s clearly established constitutional right.

Stuart Wright v. Sean Franklin

813 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 23, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … “Whether an asserted federal right was clearly established at a particular time, so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law, not one of ‘legal

Skevofilax v. Quigley

586 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1984

clearly established. … Montgomery County, 573 F.Supp. 604, 610 (D.Md.1983) (law re: strip searching of pretrial detainees was not clearly established prior to Fourth Circuit decision, was clearly established after that decision; qualified immunity

Gutierrez v. Luna County

841 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 15, 2016

“As in Smith, Plaintiffs’ response d[id] not even mention the terms ‘qualified immunity’ or ‘clearly established.’” Id. at 84. … Instead, we affirm based on the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, see Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236 (permitting courts to address the qualified immunity prongs in any order), in particular as

Berg v. Kelly

897 F.3d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 25, 2018

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … In sum, in the absence of clearly established law prohibiting the challenged detentions in the circumstances presented, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Heidi Baker Evan Baker, a Minor by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Heidi Baker v. I.G. Racansky Mavis Knox

887 F.2d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 1989

“Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy *186 qualified immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … CONCLUSION We reverse the district court’s order denying Racansky’s and Knox’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The socialworkers’ alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Sisney v. Reisch

674 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 19, 2012

We think it is clear the district court granted qualified immunity because it found Sisney had failed to allege violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established. … setting is a clearly established right.”

Hayes v. Long

72 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 12, 1996

As explained by the Supreme Court, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their challenged conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This court has taken a broad view of what constitutes "clearly established law" for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. Boswell v.

Austin Gates v. Hassan Khokar

884 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

Ct. 1765, 1775–76 (2015) (overruling the denial of qualified immunity and explaining that “[q]ualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable … The first question addressed in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.