Case law

J.E. ex rel. Edwards v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

898 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 22, 2012

Defendants Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue that the individual defendants are all protected by the qualified immunity defense. … “The qualified immunity doctrine shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability for *559 civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Waldron v. Roark

902 N.W.2d 204 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2017

Immunity. In a qualified immunity analysis, the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established. … Hillan, The Not-So-Clearly Established Qualified Immunity Doctrine, The Nebraska Lawyer, March/April 2017, at 15 (discussing history and details of qualified immunity doctrine).  2 Waldron v.

Fleury v. Polk County Sheriff's Office

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 26, 2024

that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (reiterating that “the clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” to overcome qualified immunity (quoting Anderson v.

Harris v. Mahr

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 4, 2020

We conclude that the law was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident and reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Therefore, the denial of qualified immunity was error.

Bailey v. Beale

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

Instead, it erroneously insists that Officer Beale must show a lack of clearly established law, and that the district court did not need to resolve the clearly-established-law prong of qualified immunity to deny summary … established, Officer Beale is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful entry claim.

Urena v. Shaw

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 2024

the right at issue was clearly established when it was allegedly violated.” … - established step of a court’s] qualified immunity analysis.”

Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. United States

470 U.S. 1029 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 4, 1985

Carter v. United States

684 A.2d 331 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1996

to the crucial defense witness involved who is shown to be the only witness who, if believed, would clearly establish a reasonable doubt on the defendant’s guilt. … If immunity of the crucial defense witness is then sought, the defendant must first establish to the trial court’s satisfaction that the proposed testimony is (a) material, (b) clearly exculpatory, (c) non-cumulative, and

Moncrief v. City of Montgomery (CONSENT)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 10, 2024

“Qualified immunity ‘shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”’” Odom v. … Because Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to establish that Finley violated their constitutional rights, Finley is entitled to qualified immunity on Counts II and IV. C.

Harris v. American Medical Intern., Inc.

982 F.2d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 8, 1992

Plaintiff asserts that much of the evidence necessary to establish her claims was in defendants' possession, and emphasizes that discovery was not yet completed when the district court granted summary judgment. 3 Neither … Nevertheless, the latter allegation must first expressly and clearly be made before any claim under § 1981 is even stated.

Arnold B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWARD APFFELS COFFEE COMPANY, Bill Berry and J.C. Hill, Defendants-Appellees

792 F.2d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 1986

Williams is clearly within a protected group and has suffered an adverse employ *1488 ment decision. … Williams has also clearly suffered a loss of earnings as a result of not being hired for the permanent position.

Donovan v. Bel-Loc Diner, Inc.

780 F.2d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 1985

The evidence as a whole clearly suffices to establish the existence of a pattern or practice, at least as a “just and reasonable inference.” … While, again, there was some evidence tending to show that some employees may not have been victims of the general pattern that was established prima facie, it clearly did not constitute the sort of evidence of precise work

TALLEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2024

be entitled to qualified immunity because the Amended Complaint has failed to clearly identify how the clerk violated Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights. See Mirabella v. … right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”); Williams v.

Bradley v. DuPage County Sheriff's Office

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2021

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court asks two questions: (1) whether Kuschell violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that “right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … any clearly established right.”

Gray v. Washington State Department of Transportation

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 11, 2023

Plaintiffs must assert that the Individual 9 Defendants violated a clearly established federal right in order to surmount their qualified 10 immunity defense. See Lindsey v. … Shalmy, 29 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that the 11 doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply to “clearly established federal rights.”) (emphasis 12 added).

Dawn Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department

249 F.3d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 9, 2001

In determining whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask two questions: (1) Was the law governing the officer's conduct clearly established? … Where, as here, the law is clearly established and officers cannot claim to have been reasonable in failing to comply, qualified immunity cannot be granted.

RAKES v. ROEDERER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 18, 2022

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity where: (1) "a closely analogous case establishes that the conduct is unconstitutional"; or (2) "the violation is so obvious that a reasonable state actor

J.P. v. County of Alameda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2020

that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond

641 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

P. 12(b)(6), so we review an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’” (quoting Mitchell v. … When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.”

Deaullandy Coleman v. Sergeant Jones

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Nevertheless, the court went on to grant summary judgment to the defendant prison officials on qualified immunity grounds, holding that they had violated no “clearly established” right. … See, e.g., Wall, 741 F.3d at 502 (explaining that right to religious dietary accommodations in prison is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes); Lovelace v.