Case law

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

Hutchison v. City of Huntington

198 W. Va. 139 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1996

in light of clearly established law, to a given (for purposes of appeal) set of facts. … When dealing with hroad rights, the plaintiff bears the burden of particularizing such a right before those rights are subject to the qualified immunity test of being clearly established.

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.

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.

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

Carnell v. Grimm

74 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 30, 1996

When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability, “the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could … The second step of analysis for a qualified immunity determination is whether under the clearly established law a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct was lawful. Act Up!/Portland, 988 F.2d at 871 .

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.

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.’”).

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

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.

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.

Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand

83 F.4th 743 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 29, 2023

Because Plaintiffs fail to show that Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims. … “[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes . . . .” Id.

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.

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.

Hydrick v. Hunter

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

To defeat qualified immunity, “the right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established.” Wilson v. … Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity pur- poses: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context

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

Gawloski v. Dallman

803 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1992

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Prison officials performing discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable prison official would have … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgement, a plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law.

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