Case law

Seamons v. Snow

84 F.3d 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 8, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be

Jones v. Treubig

963 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

The Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Notwithstanding that the focus of this appeal is the use of a taser, not pepper spray, we have warned that “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every

Froemming v. City of West Allis

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 5, 2021

Qualified immunity provides government officials a shield from civil liability under § 1983 “insofar as their [discretionary] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff need not point to a case that is 4Courts may exercise “their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis should be

Nelson v. City of Albuquerque

283 F. Supp. 3d 1048 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 20, 2017

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … Additionally, Judge Black clearly erred by ruling that qualified immunity did not apply, because the law was not clearly established. 36 A.

Walker v. Clearfield County District Attorney

413 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 2011

The Supreme Court has held that when prosecutors perform investigatory functions, like determining whether there is probable cause to arrest a suspect, they are entitled only to qualified, and not absolute, immunity. … Thus, to the extent that Walker’s complaint concerns Shaw’s pre-indictment investigation of the allegations against Walker, Shaw is entitled only to qualified immunity.

Layland v. Stevens

171 P.3d 1070 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 4, 2007

These undisputed facts establish that the Secret Service agents are entitled to qualified immunity. … Layland argues that Deputy Stevens is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established and a reasonable officer would have known that entry onto Mr.

Fitts v. Witkowski

920 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 28, 1996

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … As the foregoing analysis suggests, that issue is still not “clearly established.”

Anderson v. California Department of Correction

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity 21 Defendant Ferguson argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not 22 violate Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights and because it … To determine whether an 11 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 12 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time

Koch v. City of Del City

660 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 2, 2011

established and thus the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … We therefore do not need to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity to conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Beech. 4.

Arneson v. Jezwinski

206 Wis. 2d 217 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1996

Specifically, the circuit court judge found that Arne-son's due process rights were clearly established at the time of his suspension; therefore, Petitioners could not maintain a claim of qualified immunity. 3 The circuit … immunity turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken."

Young v. Gila Reg'l Med. Ctr.

495 P.3d 620 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

(2) the right was clearly established at the time of the [alleged] conduct.” … Clearly Established {19} Having found that Plaintiff has established a constitutional violation, we turn next to the question of whether the law prohibiting the search was clearly established at the time it was conducted

United States v. John Hardimon

700 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2012

The judge had already asked him whether he could think clearly, and he had said he could, which implies that he didn’t think his medications were affecting his ability to think clearly. … Not being a psychiatrist, the judge could not use dosage information to infer inability to think clearly.

Furlong v. Gardner

1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1302 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 23, 1998

any clearly established right. … to support a violation of a clearly established law.”

SUMMERVILLE v. NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPERS JOHN DOES 1-10

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2022

Gregory was entitled to qualified immunity for the initial stop, while holding that DSFC Ciano was entitled to qualified immunity. … The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right at issue was so clearly established that the officer should have known that he or she was committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances.

Shreve v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court

453 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2006

Shreve has provided sufficient evidence of a violation of her clearly established constitutional right against the use of excessive police force in the course of arrest, and qualified immunity is not warranted under Saucier … Moreover, because Sixth Circuit case law supports Shreve’s right not to be struck and jumped on gratuitously, qualified immunity is not available for lack of a “clearly established” right. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200.

Freeman v. Horst

District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 14, 2023

Once a defendant has asserted a defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at … Larsen, the Tenth Circuit did not expressly discuss the federal doctrine of qualified immunity or whether it was clearly established that reckless driving could violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Kristeen Foote v. Nancy Berryhill

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 2019

The CDIU search violated the Fourth Amendment, but the violation was not egregious because the unconstitutionality of the search was not clearly established as of February 2015, and no evidence—including footage of the … McMullen, 907 F.3d 1139, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that a similar search violated the Fourth Amendment, but granting qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the conduct was unconstitutional

Elwood v. County of Rice

423 N.W.2d 671 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 1988

The test for immunity became whether the officials’ conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reason *675 able person would have known.” … The court of appeals found the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment were clearly established at the time of the incident. Creighton v. City of St.

Kevin McCourt v. Miguel Angel Delgado

241 W. Va. 495 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2019

Under this standard, the petitioner officers contend they are entitled summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … Under a qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the petitioner officers' alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Bergquist v. Milazzo

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2021

In the absence of any clearly established precedent forbidding the officers from taking action under these circumstances, Defendants remain entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims. … Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 491 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting that a plaintiff overcoming a qualified immunity defense must show that the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct was clearly established).