Case law

Al-Turki v. Robinson

762 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2014

-2- motion for qualified immunity. … Defendant contends that even if her alleged actions violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of her alleged violation.

Rita Cavallaro v. Crittenden County

44 F. App'x 70 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

The District Court denied Sheriff Richard Busby's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Busby appeals. We reverse. … Forsyth, 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 of discovery

J. Pearl Bussey-Morice v. Ivette Gomez

587 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 1, 2014

Toward that end, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights … Faced with these facts, we affirmed summary judgment in favor of the officers on qualified-immunity grounds because we concluded that the law was not clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional

Martin v. Fuller-Brisbon

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2025

’ actions contravened clearly established law at the time of the incident. … established).

Bethel v. Warden

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Bethel also asks the Court to reconsider its decision granting Defendant Smith qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonably

Duluth-Superior ILA Marine Ass'n Restated Pension Plan v. Seaway Port Authority

501 U.S. 1218 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 17, 1991

Pritchard v. County of Erie

546 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 14, 2008

Defendants also claim qualified immunity from suit based on “an objectively reasonable belief that their actions were lawful and not in violation of any of [Plaintiffs-Respondents’j clearly established constitutional rights … “Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Doe Ex Rel. Magee v. Covington County School District Ex Rel. Board of Education

637 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 27, 2009

Standard of Review The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Even if the Defendants’ Actions Violated a Constitutional Right, the Right Was Not Clearly Established at the Time of the Incidents Giving Rise to this Case “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct

Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A.

District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 28, 2021

Co., 123 F.R.D. 198, 201 (M.D.N.C. 1998) (work product doctrine is merely qualified immunity from discovery “not having an intrinsic value outside the litigation arena.”). … Ill. 2000) (“[D]escribing a document as ‘legal advice’ . . . is not the same as establishing that [it is] immune from discovery.”).

Ahmed v. Detroit

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 17, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which shields officials from civil liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly … (finding that the rights at issue were clearly established in 1975); see also Mills, 869 F.3d at 486-87 (denying qualified immunity on malicious prosecution, fabrication, and withholding evidence claims to DNA analyst

Maria Morales v. Sonya Fry

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2017

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis should be submitted to a jury. … That “legal question” as to “qualified immunity” was precisely what was the “clearly established” law which any reasonable officer would know.

Christopher Jones v. Dwight Neven

678 F. App'x 490 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2017

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). 1. … Nor were Defendants entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Joe Cannon v. Michael Dehner

112 F.4th 580 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2024

was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … Therefore, we need not address Appellants’ alternative contention that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the specific Eighth Amendment rights at issue were not clearly established in August 2020.

Spicer v. Hilton

618 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1980

However, it is well established that courts have a duty to avoid passing upon a constitutional question if the case may be disposed of on some other ground. Hagans v. … It is clearly established that the state's immunity can be waived by the state, see, e. g., Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n., 359 U.S. 275, 276 , 79 S.Ct. 785 , 3 L.Ed.2d 804 (1959); Gunter v.

Butler v. Elle

281 F.3d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 2002

Such immunity is an affirmative defense that bars civil liability damages insofar as the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In contrast to qualified immunity, absolute immunity does not require the official to have acted reasonably or in accordance with clearly established law.

Lamar Wright v. City of Euclid

962 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 2020

We analyze whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity using two steps: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of … For this prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we are “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742 (2011).

Lancaster v. Monroe County

116 F.3d 1419 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 1997

Government officials performing discretionary ftmctions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because the law clearly established that such conduct violated a pre-trial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Ortiz v. Hasper

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 12, 2022

When an official asserts a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was ‘clearly established … The difference is that “the qualified immunity inquiry goes on to ask whether any constitutional violation was clearly established.” Jackson v. Tellado, 236 F.

Melinda C. Frank v. Howard R. Relin, Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Monroe County District Attorney

1 F.3d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 1993

It stated that the qualified immunity inquiry in this case is whether, in light of the clearly established law in 1985 and the circumstances that confronted Relin when he fired plaintiff, a reasonable district attorney could … In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a defendant official sued in his indi *1328 vidual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins

982 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 15, 2020

And, while some courts of appeals have held that this right to record is not clearly established in some contexts for purposes of qualified immunity, see, e.g., Kelly v. … That such recording qualifies as a species of protected newsgathering does not mean that Section 99's criminal bar against it necessarily violates the First Amendment.