Case law

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 .

Angelo DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville Ohio

796 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

Specifically, as pertinent here, the court denied qualified immunity to Mayor DiFilippo and Fire Chief Klubert on the due process claim concerning demolition of the building, denied qualified immunity to Police Chief Morelli … Qualified immunity shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights. Harlow v.

Gibson v. Idleberg

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 18, 2025

was clearly established at the relevant time.” … Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) (“An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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[.]”).

Monaghan v. Moates

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 20, 2023

Moreover, when the Aguirre court discussed the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity, it did not mention arguable probable cause and instead analyzed whether the plaintiff had a clearly established right to … Because Monaghan has established a genuine dispute over whether Williams and Moates violated his clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, neither Williams nor Moates are entitled to qualified immunity at this

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

Fox v. Coughlin

893 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 4, 1990

The district court denied Fox’s motion and granted the appellees’ cross motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they were protected by qualified immunity because Fox did not have a “clearly established” right to assistance … These reasons satisfy the flexible standard set forth in Wolff , and bars Fox’s § 1983 claim against DiLoreto under qualified immunity.