Case law

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

55 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 1995

As to the § 1983 claims stemming from Fordyce’s arrest, we agree with the district court that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for damages. Act Up!/Portland v. … Accordingly, all the individual police officer defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Fordyee’s § 1983 damages claims relating to his arrest.

Marques A. Johnson v. James Dunn

83 F.4th 896 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2023

Dunn moved to dismiss Count I of both the initial and amended complaints on the ground that the doctrine of qualified immunity immunized him from suit. … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I stop here and conclude that Officer Dunn is entitled to qualified immunity and that we need not address the first prong.

Talmadge McDonald Iii, a Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend, Glynis R. McDonald v. Patrick E. Haskins

966 F.2d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1992

Fitzgerald for determining qualified immunity, see 457 U.S. 800, 819 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (Í982) (whether an official is protected by qualified immunity depends upon the “objective legal reasonableness” … We agree with McDonald that Black clearly establishes that the force described in the complaint, if true, was constitutionally proscribed.

Griffin v. Mortier

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 13, 2022

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”).

Cody Marble v. Heather Smith

687 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 18, 2017

Qualified immunity should not be available to Defendant Heather Smith for violating Marble’s clearly established due process right to question the witness upon which the allegation of a parole violation was based. … His clearly established right to a hearing was effectively vitiated. Applying the doctrine of qualified immunity in this situation serves no legitimate purpose.

Durstein v. Alexander

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 13, 2019

Qualified Immunity Although qualified immunity is expansive, a government official “who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority” is not entitled … Qualified Immunity In contrast to Count One, Count Three involves a public employer’s well-established authority to limit employees’ speech, so qualified immunity applies.

Jack Harris, II v. City of Roseburg, Municipal Corporation, John Miller and Les Bergman

664 F.2d 1121 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 28, 1981

Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 321-22 , 95 S.Ct. 992, 1000-1001 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975), the Court held that the qualified immunity granted to public officials requires elements of both “objective” and “subjective” good faith. … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Rubeor v. Town of Wright

191 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 8, 2016

Was the Right Clearly Established The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established at the time that it was violated. … Therefore, the constitutional right in question was not clearly established, and individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Wilson v. Osborn

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 2022

Qualified Immunity Osborn argues that she is entitled to summary judgment with respect to both of Wilson’s claims on the basis of qualified immunity.13 The qualified immunity … “[A]n arresting [officer] is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Gutshall v. New Prime, Inc.

196 F.R.D. 43 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 2000

The work product doctrine is not a "privilege,” but a sort of "qualified immunity” from discovery, originally established in Hickman v.

Keith Hardesty v. Waterworks District 4 of Ward

621 F. App'x 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2015

“[A] defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s misconduct through the lens of the “objective reasonableness”/”clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis … the Board Defendants qualified immunity.

Frank Steffensen v. Casey Mayhew

452 F. App'x 793 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 2011

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Mayhew on the basis of qualified immunity because Mayhew’s authorization of a probationary search of a vehicle was not a clear violation of Steffensen’s Fourth Amendment … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 (2009) (qualified immunity shields “an officer from personal liability when an officer reasonably believes that his or her conduct complies with the law,” and “where clearly established law

Garcia v. Casey

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 1, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual capacity suits unless the official violates “clearly established statutory … So, the burden then shifts to Plaintiffs to establish that qualified immunity is not appropriate in this case.

Nelson v. Salem State College

446 Mass. 525 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 13, 2006

was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. … Indeed, an “unresolved” constitutional right, like the one presented in this case, cannot be “clearly established,” as required under the second prong of the qualified immunity test. See, e.g., Wilson v.

Smith v. Harris

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … he sat restrained in handcuffs— was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Purvis v. Oest

614 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

In a qualified-immunity setting, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right alleg- edly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Landstrom v. Ill. … Oest is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Despite being aware of the potential conflict of interest, Lunn and Vicini are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Addington v. Wells

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 6, 2023

On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis (i.e., whether the right in question was clearly established), the court denied Wells qualified immunity by “conclud[ing] that an inmate’s right to adequate medical … “But, to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id.

Carrillo v. Rostro

114 N.M. 607 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1992

Applying this proposition to a request for qualified immunity, we examine whether the opposing party has presented evidence to support a violation of clearly established law, so as to require a trial on the merits. … Finding that plaintiff had this clearly established right, however, does not quite dispose of the qualified-immunity issue in this case, because in order to determine whether defendants unconstitutionally infringed her right

Rich v. State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2022

immunities established at common law. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an official is immune from liability “only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official possesses, it was objectively reasonable for him to think that

Ortega v. Reyna

114 Nev. 55 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1998

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The pertinent inquiry in determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a Fourth Amendment violation is whether a reasonable officer could have believed his conduct lawful under the clearly established