Case law

Giambrone v. Douglas

874 So. 2d 1046 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 1, 2003

Douglas did not meet his burden of establishing that his actions and decisions involved functions that entitled him to immunity. B. … Furlow and Long met their burden of establishing that their actions and decisions involved functions entitling them to immunity.

Huff v. City of Burbank

632 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can shield government officials from individual civil lia *548 bility where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory , or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If the officers violated such a right, but it was not clearly established, then they are entitled to immunity. Hopkins, 573 F.3d at 762 .

Castagna v. Jean

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

Town of Eastham, 745 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2014) (holding that officers who entered home under community caretaking exception were entitled to qualified immunity because unlawfulness of conduct was not clearly established) … To defeat the officers' assertion of qualified immunity, the Castagnas must show that the officers' conduct was clearly established as unlawful in 2013. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018).

Glenn Dale Simkunas v. Michael Tardi and Robert Troy

930 F.2d 1287 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 3, 1991

Qualified Immunity Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity “if officers of reasonable competence could disagree” on whether there was probable cause to make an arrest. Malley v. … They were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, and summary judgment on this basis was therefore appropriate. B.

Kulwicki, III v. Dawson

969 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 2, 1992

He is immune if he acted reasonably with respect to Kulwicki's constitutional rights, or if he did not violate clearly established law. … communication, however, we find that Loutzenhiser is entitled to qualified immunity because Kulwicki fails to allege a violation of clearly established federal law.

Paduch v. City of Johnson City

896 S.W.2d 767 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1995

Mandamus is a summary remedy, extraordinary in its nature, and to be applied only *770 when a right has been clearly established. Peerless, 14 S.W.2d at 733 . … If the right be doubtful, it must be first established in some other form of action; mandamus will not lie to establish as well as enforce a claim of uncertain merit.

Freeman v. Sansom

District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 16, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is intended to shield public officials from liability from civil damages when their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly … App’x 238, 242 (2d Cir. 2010) (“To be denied summary judgment on qualified immunity, an official must violate clearly established law.”) (citing Harlow v.

Claudine L. Boyce, Also Known as Marilyn Boyce v. Vera Fernandes and City of Peoria, Illinois

77 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 26, 1996

Where the only issue bearing on immunity is whether the defendant had probable cause to make the search or arrest that is challenged, merits and immunity merge; the dispositive question is simply whether the defendant did … The fact that in the end Boyce was not prosecuted does not establish the absence of probable cause, and not only because the legal standard and the evidentiary requirements for probable cause are more stringent at the preliminary

Friedman v. Boucher

580 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

Because Friedman’s rights were clearly established at the time that Defendants took the sample, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the forcible taking of the DNA sample violated Friedman’s clearly established constitutional rights, neither Boucher nor Luzaich is entitled to qualified immunity.

Dwayne Cochran v. Town Of Jonesborough, Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Mar 27, 2019

established right[.]” … Lubelan, 675 F.App’x. 497, 500 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[H]andcuffing someone so tightly that the handcuffs themselves cause injury is indeed a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment[.]”).

Fleet Hamby v. Steven Hammond

821 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2016

For that reason alone, they did not violate a “clearly established” right, and so they must be entitled to qualified immunity. … Even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which Hamby relies cannot do the work he asks of them. a One of the cases Hamby cites denied qualified immunity

McCrae v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2023

qualified immunity at this stage.” … An officer who has violated the Fourth Amendment may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity so long as the officer did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

ND State University v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2001

"Wages usually are income, but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages." Cent. Ill. Pub. Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978). … because a tenured professor's right to substantive due process was clearly established); see also Mueller v.

Marlin v. Bill Rich Construction, Inc.

198 W. Va. 635 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1996

Thus, appel-lee argues that the Tort Claims Act clearly contemplates immunity in the instant claim. … The complaint alleged derivative claims for loss of love, society, comfort, companionship, and services that would not survive immunity under W.Va.Code § 29-12A-5(a)(11), if the Board could establish such immunity as set

Tyree Bell v. Officer Peter Neukirch

979 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 28, 2020

was clearly established at the time.” … If their unlawful conduct was clearly established, then they are not entitled to qualified immunity. See id.

Walden v. Carmack

156 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 28, 1998

In resolving a case in which the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, this Court must determine whether the appellees asserted a violation of a federal right, whether that right was clearly established, and whether … These persons are immune from suit on the basis of qualified immunity unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Ramirez v. New Mexico Department of Corrections

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 16, 2023

Plaintiff has also not shown that Defendant Gonzales violated clearly established First Amendment law. Plaintiff acknowledged that Defendant Gonzales raised qualified immunity in his summary judgment motion. … Glanz, 813 F.3d 938, 952 n.10 (10th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff has burden under qualified immunity to show violation of clearly established law, even when defendant does not expressly discuss clearly established law); see also

Sherrod v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2018

Accordingly, Detective McHugh is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because the stop did not violate the Sherrods’ constitutional rights or, at the very least, it was not clearly established that a stop of this … established, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Maureen Mirabella v. Susan Villard

853 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

The rights allegedly violated, however, were not clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, however, we conclude that the right was not clearly established.

Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 16, 2026

recognizing that judges may begin by considering whether a right is "clearly established"). … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, an official is immune to liability for damages when his or her "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would