Case law

Kerns v. Bader

663 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2011

In other words, the district court’s opinion addressed only the first part of the two part test for qualified immunity. What to do when the district court fails to address the second, clearly established law, element? … And it proceeds to deny qualified immunity to all three defendants without pausing to address the clearly established law question. To be sure, the dissent appears very concerned by the fact that Mr.

(PC) Abdullah v. Dacuycuy

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

Qualified Immunity 5 Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the actions they took 6 were not clearly unconstitutional. (ECF No. 52-1 at 21.) … (Id.) 9 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 10 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Conway

152 Vt. 363 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Aug 25, 1989

first impression in a manner “not clearly foreshadowed”), and where its retroactive application would be inequitable. … First, we do not see this case as establishing a new rule of law..

William McKinney v. Pat Anderson Carol Ployer H.L. Whitley George W. Sumner John Nye

924 F.2d 1500 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 1991

The defendants have raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … At the time the defendants acted, there was no clearly established liability for exposing prisoners to ETS.

Gaston v. Ploeger

229 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 12, 2007

When a defendant has asserted qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish: (1) that the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional right, and (2) that, at the time of the incident, it was clearly … The appellants contend that, as a matter of law, the facts in the record do not establish a constitutional violation; if this is true, they are necessarily entitled to qualified immunity.

Michael A. Kroll v. United States Capitol Police

847 F.2d 899 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Kroll did not constitute the violation of a “clearly established” right within the meaning of Harlow . … Under Harlow and its progeny, defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity raises only a narrow question.

Picray v. Sealock

138 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 1998

He contends that each of these bases of immunity was clearly established at the time of his arrest. We disagree. … None of Picray’s asserted bases of immunity from arrest were “clearly established” at the time of his arrest.

Scott v. Carpenter

District Court, D. South Dakota · Jan 25, 2024

for the limited purpose of addressing the issue of qualified immunity.” … issue can be resolved); Lovelace, 47 F.3d at 287 (holding that discovery was appropriate when plaintiff states a claim of violation of a clearly established law and the parties disagree as to what actions the defendants

Schroeder v. St. Louis County

708 N.W.2d 497 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 26, 2006

Nevertheless, we extended official immunity to the teacher because the department policy itself was being challenged and the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official … He was not required by an established protocol to grade against traffic.

Weatherford Ex Rel. Michael L. v. State

206 Ariz. 529 · Arizona Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2003

Government officials performing discretionary functions, however, receive qualified immunity from § 1983 actions unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or federal statutory *532 right of which … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). ¶ 6 To overcome the social workers’ qualified immunity defense, Weatherford bears the initial burden of proving a violation of a clearly established

Robert Devereaux v. Roberto Ricardo Perez

218 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review 30 A district court's decision that an asserted federal right was "clearly established" such that qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. … Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 931 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that "the dimensions of [the] right [to family integrity ] have yet to be clearly established" and applying qualified immunity to suit in which social worker allegedly interfered

Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District

235 Conn. 1 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 15, 1995

The legislative history of the act clearly establishes that it was intentionally patterned after the antitrust law of the federal government. See 14 H.R. Proc. … Id., 185. 25 In this case, the defendant did not specially plead any immunity defense — absolute or qualified.

Hamilton v. The City of Wilmer Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 1, 2023

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must plead facts: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … “To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Brown v.

Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority

771 F.3d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 14, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects defendants in § 1983 suits from the burden of going to trial where the “conduct [at issue] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the law was not clearly established, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the strip search of Teter. 2 III.

Billups v. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

910 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2012

Immunity Finally, the Court will address whether Drs. … Choudhary, Crowell, and Dias are absolutely immune from liability. B.

Estate of Derek Williams, Jr. v. Jeffrey Cline

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

It concludes, however, that we have jurisdiction to consider the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether those constitutional rights were clearly established. … legal questions related to qualified immunity.

Sanchez v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2023

The Court agrees with Defendants that there is no clearly established law and thus 4 Allbee is entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the “clearly established” standard applies to federal 5 qualified immunity; under California’s Bane Act, the “clearly delineated” standard 6 governs, which is different.

Porter v. Bowen

496 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2007

Finally, we hold that Jones is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the constitutionality of halting vote swapping was not clearly established in 2000. … The court ruled that Jones was entitled to qualified immunity because “the law regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting internet vo-teswapping is far from clearly established.”

Maye v. New Haven

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 24, 2023

The qualified immunity decisions Defendants cite as the “controlling decisions” were the law on qualified immunity when the deadline for dispositive motions passed. … City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 108 (2d Cir. 2004) (“The matter of whether a right was clearly established at the pertinent time is a question of law.”) (citing cases).

United States v. Morton

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 23, 2022

Morton, 984 F.3d 421, 427 (5th Cir. 2021), they do not establish probable cause “that the photographs on Morton’s phones would contain evidence pertinent to [that] crime,” id. at 428. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 236 (2009) (giving courts discretion to rule only on the “clearly established” inquiry for qualified immunity but recognizing that deciding the underlying constitutional question is “often