Case law

J.M. v. Parlier Unified School District

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 10, 2021

Qualified Immunity 14 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 15 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 27 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Vorobyev v. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

Moreover, we find that the law was not clearly established at the time of Wolfe’s alleged violative act; therefore, Wolfe is shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … the right was clearly established.

United States v. Reid

139 F.3d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

Other than this brief comment, nothing in the record tells us why the court concluded that the appellant did not qualify for a § 5C1.2 reduction. … Furthermore, the evidence in the record does not clearly establish that he did not qualify.

Jeffers v. Albright

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 28, 2023

Thus, if the WVRJCFA is shown to have “violated a clearly established right or law with respect to training, supervision, or retention of [the correctional officer], the WVRJCFA is not entitled to immunity … Va. 2017) (“qualified immunity is broad and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

(PC) Rico v. Ducart

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2020

Qualified Immunity 4 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 5 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … immunity where their conduct did not violate clearly 5 | established law.

Estate of Ryan L. Clark v. Tina Kuehn

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2017

First, he argues that it is “doubtful” whether cir‐ cuit precedent can clearly establish law for purposes of quali‐ fied  immunity.  … Finally, Walker argues that the clearly established prohibi‐ tion on deliberate indifference to prisoners’ and jail inmates’  risk of suicide is too general to be enforceable for purposes of  qualified immunity. 

Payne v. Cornhusker Motor Lines, Inc.

177 S.W.3d 820 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2005

However, a trial court abuses its discretion when a ruling shocks one’s sense of justice, indicates a lack of consideration, and is clearly against the logic of the circumstances. Id. … Thus, although Section 490.680 requires a foundation consisting of testimony by a qualified witness, Section 490.692 allows this foundation to be established with an affidavit rather than by direct testimony. Smith v.

Harris v. Commissioner

16 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 1994

Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935) (holding that a transaction, although qualifying in form, failed to qualify in substance as a reorganization because "[t]o hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice … We must, however, accept the Tax Court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 1200, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960).

Chaaban v. City of Detroit

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 2, 2022

On the other hand, the Crawford court held that the general preference to not grant motions to dismiss on qualified immunity “might have more vitality in the clearly established context” where “the application … Indeed, the court stated, “[d]ismissing for qualified immunity on [the clearly established prong] is sometimes difficult because the . . . inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery.

Walczyk v. Rio

496 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 1, 2007

Only if the answer to the first question is yes must a court proceed to the inquiry for qualified immunity: Was the right at issue clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions? … If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant.

Holly Schulkers v. Elizabeth Kammer

955 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2020

A right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming the qualified immunity defense when existing precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.”

Orona v. Board of Commissioners for Bernalillo County

District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 21, 2020

Constitutional Violation was Not Clearly Established. Alternatively, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. … Here, Defendant Sena-Henderson asserted qualified immunity and specifically the clearly established prong.

Anthony Perez v. City of Fresno

98 F.4th 919 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

The panel held that the law-enforcement officers were entitled to qualified immunity. At the time of Perez’s death in 2017, the law did not clearly establish, nor was it * The Honorable Danny J. … The district court likewise granted Anderson qualified immunity because existing law did not clearly establish, nor was it obvious, that Anderson’s conduct in providing medical care was unconstitutional.

Louis Doss v. John Young

626 F. App'x 453 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2015

Qualified Immunity Government officials may invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Law Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether Helpenstell’s conduct was proscribed by clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Miles LaCross v. City of Duluth

713 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2013

-3- Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established … Accordingly, Mark is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate LaCross’s then clearly established constitutional rights.

Raiche v. Pietroski

623 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 25, 2010

Qualified immunity affords limited protection to public officials faced with liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Prong Two: The Right was Clearly Established Pietroski may still mount a successful qualified immunity defense if Raiche's Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established at

Bush v. Strain

513 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2008

A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.21 … We also hold that the defendants have not established that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Dyjak v. Miller

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2024

and (2) whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established. … Liebel, 877 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2017) (affirming qualified immunity, and holding that Turner merely creates a generalized framework to analyze claims and cannot create clearly established law

Pretzman v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2024

“The United States is generally immune from suit unless there is explicit statutory waiver of its sover- eign immunity.” Lewis v. D.C. Police Dep’t, 271 F. … Supp. 3d 18, 23 (D.D.C. 2022) (“The Privacy Act provides a waiver of sovereign immunity, but the waiver is limited in scope: the Act only waives sovereign immunity for ‘actual damages.’ . . .

Mecham v. Frazier

500 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 11, 2007

Even if the officers’ use of pepper spray was not objectively reasonable, M echam has failed to meet the other requirement necessary to defeat qualified immunity— that the law was clearly established at the time of the … , the officers w ere entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law foreclosed the use of force in the circumstances here.