Case law

Dufort v. City of New York

874 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the Defendants argue that even if Dufort has established the requisite elements of his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity … Qualified immunity establishes a defense for a government actor acting in his official capacity. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Gonzales v. Dankel

District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 12, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Johnston, 14 F.3d at 1059. … “Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Hernandez v. Tex.

Fajardo v. City of Bakersfield

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 25, 2022

Immunity 3 “Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not 4 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … S. 223 (2009)(holding 6 that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their entry did not violate clearly 7

Sims v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 19, 2023

Defendants have raised a viable issue regarding the manner in which the Court analyzed 19 qualified immunity. See Cunningham v. … Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he 4 ‘clearly established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can decide.”).

Donovan v. City of Milwaukee

17 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1994

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As the Adams court correctly ob *953 served, “generalities are just not helpful” in qualified immunity decisions because “[t]he bright line of ‘clearly established law”’ is “staked out by a process of inclusion and exclusion

Yerdon v. Poitras

120 F.4th 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 2024

And it is well-established that Congress has not validly abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity for claims arising under Title I. See Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001). … Because Congress has clearly expressed its intention to abrogate state sovereign immunity for all claims under the ADA, see 42 U.S.C.

Patrick v. Miller

953 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 1992

, public officials lose immunity in the face of clearly established law. … established law," thereby giving rise to qualified immunity under Harlow....

Estella Lucero v. Dennis B. Hart, Rugh J. Papp, and Susie Mitchell

915 F.2d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1990

Government officials are immune from liability for civil damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Under Harlow’s “reasonable person” test, no clearly established statutory or constitutional right was violated. Thus, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity is affirmed. B.

Javier Vanegas v. City of Pasadena

46 F.4th 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022

CITY OF PASADENA qualified immunity analysis—whether the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not “clearly established.” … And even if no probable cause existed under state law, they contend they are still entitled to qualified immunity given there was no violation of clearly established law.

Farris v. Maury County Jail

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 4, 2025

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. … Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2024) (the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff’s cursory briefing makes no attempt to meet his burden of showing that the defendant violated his clearly

Sherry Wilkerson v. City of Akron, Ohio

906 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability so long as they do not violate clearly established rights that a reasonable officer in their shoes would have recognized. Harlow v. … Danzy did not violate Thomas’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Matthew Milstead, Administrator of the Estate of Mark Milstead v. Chad Kibler Scott Proctor Lester Whetzel

243 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 5, 2001

The legal principles governing qualified immunity analysis are well established. … “Police officers are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Albero v. Worcester County Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 11, 2025

Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that qualified immunity applies when either (1) a plaintiff fails to state a violation of a federal right or (2) a defendant shows the right was not clearly established … Having determined that Plaintiffs fail to state a violation of Arthur’s federal rights, there is no need for the Court to address, for qualified-immunity purposes, whether any such right was “clearly established” at the

Osier v. Burlington Telecom

Vermont Superior Court · Oct 20, 2010

“‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” … Phrased another way, the question of “clearly established law” in this case is as follows: (1) was it clearly established law that a government official must comply with a regulatory entity’s order such as the Certificate

Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States

244 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 26, 2001

Moreover, since Moore's conduct took place prior to the 1994 decision in Albright, it could not have violated any clearly established constitutional right. Moore is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … established constitutional right and that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Patricia Polanco v. Ralph Diaz

76 F.4th 918 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 2023

NELSON, dissenting: Because the law is not clearly established, I conclude that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Id. at 1121 (granting qualified immunity because it found the law was not clearly established).

Walker v. City of Orem

451 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Plaintiffs version of the facts therefore shows the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right. We must therefore affirm the district court’s order denying qualified immunity to Officer Peterson. … That right is also clearly established. We must therefore affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Officer Clayton.

Dwain Smith v. Conway County, Arkansas

759 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Hope v. … The district court denied Zulpo qualified immunity.

Linda K. Wood v. Steven C. Ostrander Neil Maloney

851 F.2d 1212 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 13, 1988

Qualified immunity State officials cannot be held liable for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Davis v. … away clearly established law.

Sharon Ann Belcher, as Administratrix of the Estate of Rocky L. Belcher, Deceased v. The City of Foley, Alabama, James Anderson Officer Jimmy Roberson Charles McKinley Dwain Riebeling, Sharon Ann Belcher, as Administratrix of the Estate of Rocky L. Belcher, Deceased v. The City of Foley, Alabama James Anderson Officer Jimmy Roberson Charles McKinley Dwain Riebeling

30 F.3d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1994

Thus, to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity, Mrs. … Belcher's death no decision had clearly established that Chief Anderson's actions or inactions constituted deliberate indifference, he is entitled to qualified immunity. 40 2.