Case law

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.

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.

Edwards v. DeBord

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 12, 2019

immunity. … Harris, 65 F.3d 347, 359 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that when resolution of qualified immunity question and case itself both depend upon a determination of what actually happened, summary judgment on grounds of qualified

John Betts v. Martha Anne Shearman

751 F.3d 78 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 2, 2014

Even  in  the  absence  of  probable  cause,  a  police  officer  is  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  where  “(1)  [her]  conduct  does  not  violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which  … For  the  following reasons, we agree with the district court that the arresting  officers  had  arguable  probable  cause  and  were  entitled  to  qualified  immunity.   10 13

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.

Blackwell-Esters v. City of Detroit

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 14, 2025

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … App’x 437, 447 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding defendants waived arguments as to “clearly established” prong where defendants’ qualified immunity argument was a “one-and-a-half page statement of the law with no attempt

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

Blaylock v. City of Philadelphia

504 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2007

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”) … According ly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity here “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Andre Blaylock “in light of clearly established law and the information

Robbie Autery v. Kevin Davis

355 F. App'x 253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 12, 2009

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their discretionary actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Lewis v. … Even in the absence of Terry, Sheriff Davis would still be entitled to qualified immunity. In Foy v.

Jensen v. City of Oxnard

145 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity All of the individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are given qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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

Detreville v. Gurevich

District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 14, 2022

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Alternatively, defendants claim that there was arguable probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and that plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Frank M. Dimeglio v. J. Robert Haines, Individually and in His Former Official Capacity as Zoning Commissioner of Baltimore County, Maryland, and Arnold M. Jablon, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director of Zoning Administration and Development Management of Baltimore County, Maryland Roger Hayden, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Executive of Baltimore County, Maryland Baltimore County, Maryland, a Municipal Corporation

45 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1995

The term "clearly established" has an acquired meaning referencing qualified immunity, with its focus on law at the time of the challenged conduct. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law 'clearly established' when assessing claims of qualified immunity."); Borucki v.

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.

BUCEK v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2023

The individual County Defendants separately raise qualified immunity defenses. … Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.”). II.

United States v. Fred Romano

583 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 11, 1978

... is very general in nature and may implicate only low-level government employees” and that “because of the close relationship established by your Subcommittee with our investigators, proof that the immunized testimony … While the Government clearly would not be entitled to rely entirely on one or two conclusory affidavits to carry its burden, see United States v.

SNUKIS v. TAYLOR

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 2022

To determine whether the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine whether as of September 13, 2019, the law had clearly established that a police officer violates an arrestee's Fourth Amendment … As Plaintiffs note, in 2017, the Seventh Circuit clearly established that an officer's failure to take any action in light of a detainee's serious medical need precludes qualified immunity. 872 F.3d at 460.

Peggy Kelley v. Mark Myler, Gene Patrick, Ralph Bell and Hurricane Foods, Inc.

149 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 1998

The court also found that because the arrest was reasonable, the officers did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Whether a defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity defense depends on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.

United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development

445 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2006

“The [appellant] must clearly and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy these Art. Ill standing requirements. … “It is well-established that one panel of our court will not overturn another absent an intervening precedent by our court sitting en banc or a Supreme Court precedent.” FDIC v.

Roska v. Peterson

328 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

At the same time, where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only “rarely” be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense. 27 V-1 Oil Co. v. … principle was “clearly established.”