Case law

STILE v. HOLLINGSWORTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2021

assuming Plaintiff’s allegations to be true and determining whether the claim was supported by clearly established law. … Ed. 2d 463 (2017) (explaining that clearly established law, for purposes of qualified immunity, must make apparent the unlawfulness of the conduct that violates the Constitution).

Ramirez v. Escajeda

District Court, W.D. Texas · May 31, 2022

’s conduct was, “as a matter of law,” “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law,” Cantrell, 666 F.3d at 921; Kinney v. … Bay City, Tex., 227 F.3d 316, 320–24 (5th Cir. 2000) (addressing whether there was clearly-established law). But see Colston v.

Kenneth L. Erickson v. United States of America Bryon Simon Douglas Hebert Kenneth Ingleby Charles Hill

976 F.2d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 1992

In addition, the individually named defendants would be qualifiedly immune as there was no clearly established constitutional principle prohibiting the acts alleged by the plaintiff.” … We have divided the qualified immunity analysis into three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so “clearly established” as to alert a

Gill v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2019

The manner in which courts are permitted to resolve qualified-immunity defenses protects from unnecessary constitutional conjecture: “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly … To begin, the named Marshals are clearly entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional questions in this case fall well short of being “clearly established.”

Derrick Bunkley v. City of Detroit, Mich.

902 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established.

Jack v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity 18 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 19 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 3 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Thomas Hobgood v. Illinois Gaming Board

731 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The defendants argue that they are immune because Hobgood did not have a clearly estab- lished right to deliver confidential information to Gnutek, but their argument is irrelevant to the issue of qualified immunity.

Ghaith v. Rauschenberger

778 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 10, 2011

“Qualified immunity provides ‘that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

People of Michigan v. Dametrius Benjamin Posey

Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2023

immunity rather than complete immunity applies where the prosecutor is acting as a police officer and not in the role of an advocate) (quotation marks and citation omitted). … The lead opinion does not address this important qualifier.

Anderson v. Creighton

483 U.S. 635 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 25, 1987

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … As we noted before, Harlow clearly expressed the understanding that the general principle of qualified immunity it established would be applied “across the board.”

Bowden v. Snider

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 23, 2024

What is more, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 5 (2021) (A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “when it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable officer would have understood that what he is doing violates that

Ex Parte Juan Antonio Molina Valencia v. .

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Apr 17, 2024

App. 2013) (“[A]n issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”). … ); Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (holding mandamus relief is available if “the principle of law has been clearly established”).

Torchinsky v. Siwinski

942 F.2d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 9, 1991

The basic purposes of qualified immunity bear repeating. … This objective test involves an inquiry into whether a government official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Pugh v. Mooney

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

Pugh also cites several cases discussing qualified immunity to argue that sovereign immunity does not apply. These cases are inapposite. Sovereign immunity and qualified immunity are distinct concepts. … Children & Youth Servs., 577 F.3d 186, 191 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Town of Port Deposit v. Petetit

113 Md. App. 401 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1997

Whether a defendant possesses a qualified immunity is ultimately an issue of law for the court to determine. … of an absolute immunity defense or a Harlow type of qualified immunity defense; the issues would be legal ones.

Randell v. Davis

986 F.2d 1419 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1993

Scott v. Quigley

District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 29, 2025

While the Court decides 17 as a matter of law the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis, only 18 the jury can decide the disputed factual issues. See Morales v. … Cal. 25 2012) (police officer entitled to qualified immunity because constitutional informational 26 privacy right was not clearly established); O'Phelan v.

Belsito Communications, Inc. v. Decker

845 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 23, 2016

ISSUES INVOLVING BLACKDEN On the qualified-immunity front, our combatants battle over whether Trooper Decker violated clearly-established Fourth- and First-Amendment law. … At qualified-immunity's second step, Blackden must show that clearly-established law in August 2010 would have put Trooper Decker on clear notice of his potential First-Amendment liability.

McKennon v. District Attorney's Office (Lawrenceburg, TN)

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · May 31, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the … unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Butler v. Woods

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 28, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Finally, the defendants argue that Bellas and Woods are protected by qualified immunity. … Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 447 (Sth Cir. 2011) (analyzing, as part of qualified immunity, whether the defendant’s “failure to promulgate [a] policy was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”).