Case law

Halley v. Huckaby

902 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 27, 2018

But the good-faith exception is subsumed by the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity, which we discuss below. See Groh v. … Clearly Established Law We now turn to the second part of our qualified immunity analysis.

Martinez v. Carr

479 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

The district court further found this seizure to be unlawful and ruled that Officer Carr w as not entitled to qualified immunity from suit because his conduct violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under … In order for the law to be considered clearly established at the second step of the Saucier analysis, we have explained that “‘there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established

Estate of Jeffrey Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer

301 F.3d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2002

Each moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity. … was clearly established.

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity 11 Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the "right" they allegedly violated was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment's protection against excessive force was not clearly established

Patrick Booker v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

855 F.3d 533 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 28, 2017

Qualified immunity protects officials “who commit constitutional violations *538 but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Id. … established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity.”

Burns v. County of Cambria

971 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1992

Finally, in considering the qualified immunity defense of the two Roberts defendants, the court held that they were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Id. II. Appellate Jurisdiction A. … Clearly Established Standard Roberts argues, however, that it was not clearly established at the time of these dismissals that deputy sheriffs, as distinguished from other public officials, were indeed protected under the

Lewis v. Harrison School District No. 1

805 F.2d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity The district court found that the individual board members and school officials could not be held liable under Harlow v. … Under Harlow and Mitchell the test for invoking qualified immunity is whether a defendant governmental official’s conduct violated “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would

SCANLON v. LAWSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2020

Thus, Plaintiff has not established a constitutional violation for failure to protect and the Court need not proceed to the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, even if deliberate indifference could be established on this record, Defendants Balicki and Surrency, in their individual capacities, would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Strickland v. City of Las Cruces

District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 27, 2025

(Doc. 63) at 11.1 Alternatively, Defendants argue they are “entitled to qualified immunity, pursuant to Wilson, 52 F.3d 1547, because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident.” Id. … Even if the Court determined Defendant Officers’ PIT maneuver was objectively unreasonable, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because performing the PIT maneuver did not violate clearly established law.

Hyman v. Lewis

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 14, 2019

The complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983; further, because Plaintiff has not articulated a constitutional violation by the individual defendants, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity provides immunity from suit for government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Yu Kikumura v. C.A. Turner

28 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1994

The district court granted summary judgment in Turner’s favor, finding that Turner was entitled to qualified immunity, and that the challenged actions did not violate Kikumura’s “clearly established constitutional rights. … As our discussion of Kikumura’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief (pages 597-99, below) demonstrates, this is a close question, and the point of qualified immunity and its “clearly established” requirement is that

Lowrance v. Achtyl

20 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 29, 1994

immunity. … That burden having been met, the burden then shifted to the defendants to establish that Aehtyl would have issued the report in the absence of the improper reason.

Quintana v. Santa Fe County Board of Comm.

973 F.3d 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 28, 2020

Qualified Immunity Our qualified-immunity inquiry requires a plaintiff to allege that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … When qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established. Estate of Booker v.

Novak v. City of Parma

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 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 the challenged conduct. … Seitzinger, 363 F. 3d 645, 648 (7th Cir. 2004) (awarding officer qualified immunity and holding that the officer’s consultation with prosecutor “goes far” to establish qualified immunity); Dixon v.

Moore v. Vega

371 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 2004

entitlement to qualified immunity. … : qualified immunity protects that officer unless' his performance was in violation of clearly established law, or was plainly incompetent.

Clabough

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2026

entitled to qualified immunity.”). … Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Langford v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2020

Defendants contend that plaintiff has pled no facts to support a § 1983 claim and that they “are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.” Defs.’ Mot. at 1. … It concludes nonetheless that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since the allegations fail to show their violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Harlow v.

Abby Martin v. Chancellor for The Board of Regents of The University System Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2023

Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1288 n.11 (1999) (“This Circuit has held that dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.”); Hamilton v. … For a broad, clearly established principle to prevent qualified immunity from applying, “the principle must be established with ‘obvious clarity’ by the case law so that ‘every objectively reasonable

Manetta v. County of Macomb

955 F. Supp. 771 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 12, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly … ; rather, they are subject to only qualified immunity).

Doubleday v. Ruh

93 Daily Journal DAR 9706 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1993

As clearly held by In Re California Public Utilities Com’n, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1989), the work product immunity cannot be claimed by one who would ordinarily hold the right to assert the immunity 5 unless that person … Assertion of work product is not assertion of a privilege, but rather assertion of a qualified immunity. Admiral Ins v. U.S.D.C. (Ariz.), 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir.1989).