Case law

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.

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.

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

103 Wash. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 11, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken.” … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers’ actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

Cleveland v. Martin

590 F. App'x 726 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 2014

 Qualified Immunity. … With these unpublished decisions, we cannot find a clearly established liberty interest. And without such an interest, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim.

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.

Douglas v. University of Hawaii

District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 7, 2023

In other words, an official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a law that was clearly established at the relevant time showed that his conduct was unlawful and “a reasonable official could not have believed” otherwise … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985) (qualified immunity protects officials unless “the law clearly proscribed the[ir] actions”).

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.

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

Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Human Services

519 F.3d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

the alleged violation was not clearly established. … defendant violated clearly established law.”

Zeigler v. Jackson

716 F.2d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1983

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that public officials whose positions entail the exercise of discretion enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability in … In order to show that a defendant exercising broad discretionary power lacked good faith, plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

(PC) Hafiz v. Yates

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2020

Hines, 914 F.3d at 1230. 1 Ninth Circuit, like the courts below, proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified 2 immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ … Katz, 533 U.S. 4 194, 201 (2001) (establishing the two-part inquiry for qualified immunity: (1) whether the 5 alleged facts violate the Constitution, and (2) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was 6 clearly

Sanchez v. The Village of Wheeling

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 2020

Evanston Defendants seek qualified immunity for Detective Bush, arguing that the right at issue was not clearly established. Doc. 49 at 4-9. … To avoid qualified immunity, Sánchez must show that the right was clearly established “in a particularized sense, rather than at a high level of generality.” Alicea v.

Joseph Wheeler, Cross v. City of Pleasant Grove, a Municipal Corp., Cross

664 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 1981

We see no reason to disturb this finding under the clearly erroneous rule. … The district court held that the defendants in this action were shielded by the defense of a qualified immunity as set forth in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

Purtell v. Mason

527 F.3d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2008

Qualified-immunity claims are determined by reference to the two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman v.

McMahon v. City of Beardstown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2024

But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. … McMahon’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures. As a result, the Court cannot find that the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nettles-Bey v.

Johnson v. Dobbins

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 17, 2021

“To survive a motion to dismiss on qualified- immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that ‘plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established … Here, Plaintiff alleges that the County Defendants violated clearly established law by placing him in solitary confinement without justification. (Doc. No. 67 at 10).

Al-Jundi v. Estate Of

885 F.2d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1989

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate those rights." 28 Al-Jundi contends that, at the time of the Attica riot, the law was well-established that the

Little v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 256 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2015

In their sur-reply, plaintiffs put forth new and additional reasons on which they base their request for relief, which either were not clearly asserted previously or were entirely absent in their original complaint or amended … As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction over claims against the United States (1) founded on an express or implied contract with the United States,

ESTATE OF FRANCES D. DEROSA v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2025

. ¶¶ 79, 80, 94.)2 On May 12, 2023, Judge Quraishi granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that because no clearly established right was violated, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct