Case law

Krueger v. Lyng

4 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 1993

The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were protected by qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

McCall v. Williams

52 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. South Carolina · May 19, 1999

Although the right to due process of law, for example, is quite clearly established, the qualified immunity analysis law is not “to be applied at this level of generality.” Anderson v. … The court notes that the Kopf case, upon which the Vathekan court relied for its clearly established law, did not involve an assertion of the qualified immunity defense.

Will El v. City of Pittsburgh

975 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2020

In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable … of the qualified immunity analysis: “whether the right was clearly established.”

Klindtworth v. Burkett

477 N.W.2d 176 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … When a court is faced with a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether or not the alleged conduct of the defendant was violative of "clearly established" law.

Montgomery v. Lore

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 17, 2022

Defendant argues for dismissal of all claims on the grounds of qualified immunity, as Plaintiff fails to cite to clearly established law and cannot show that Defendant did not have reasonable suspicion. … CONCLUSION Defendant should be entitled to qualified immunity because he possessed reasonable suspicion, and Plaintiff has failed to cite to clearly established law.

Vega v. Semple

963 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 29, 2020

Accordingly, the District Court denied Defendants qualified immunity for conduct alleged to have occurred after Helling, decided on June 18, 1993, finding the right to be clearly established as of that date. … In denying defendants qualified immunity on this claim, we first noted that a prisoner’s right to a meaningful opportunity for physical exercise had been clearly established since 1985. Id. at *6 (citing Anderson v.

Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. Peerce

132 S.W.3d 824 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2004

is inapplicable to his § 1983 claims and qualified immunity does not protect the individually-named official Appellants because their actions clearly violated Appellee’s well-established statutory and constitutional rights … Conversely, if the official’s actions violated a clearly established right or law, the immunity is lost and the official is hable for the violation.

Robert Bardo v. K. Clendenin

474 F. App'x 673 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 23, 2012

The district court properly held that defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because Bardo did not have a clearly established First Amendment right to retain the ad depicting side-view nudity. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (“For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Savard v. State of RI

338 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 11, 2003

Qualified immunity is available to the defendants if, at the time of the alleged violations, the law was not clearly established. See id. … The law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 3.

Roberts v. Swain

126 N.C. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1997

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 … However, qualified immunity could operate to shield Swain and McCracken from plaintiff’s damages suit “if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed’ ” plaintiff’s arrest “ ‘to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Yount v. Millington

117 N.M. 95 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, provided that their actions are objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow v. … We first note that the allegedly violated law that must be clearly established in the context of a qualified-immunity analysis is federal law, not state law. Estate of Himelstein v.

Morales Mancia v. Elam

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 13, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To determine whether the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, a court “‘ordinarily need not look beyond the decisions of the Supreme Court, [the] court of appeals, and the highest court of the state

Perry v. Durborow

892 F.3d 1116 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2018

See Riggins, 572 F.3d at 1107 (noting that to overcome qualified-immunity defense, “plaintiff must demonstrate . . . that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity” (emphasis added)). … Nevertheless, Durborow is entitled to qualified immunity unless Perry can also show that the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation. Riggins, 572 F.3d at 1107. B.

Leslie Atkinson v. Brent Godfrey

100 F.4th 498 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 2, 2024

Under that prong, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time of the challenged conduct, the law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional. … Instead, under prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, we held that the constitutional rights Atkinson claimed Godfrey violated were not clearly established at the time of Godfrey’s conduct.

Neimes v. Kien Chung Ta

985 S.W.2d 132 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jan 11, 1999

Woo’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity because the constitutional rights that Ta and Fisher have asserted are not clearly established. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, government officials performing discretionary

Bates v. Rowe

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2023

After the issue of qualified immunity is ' Defendants have each appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (See Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 34.) … .”); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Wyoming State Hospital and State of Wyoming v. Mary Romine and Donald Romine, as Guardians and Conservators for and On Behalf of Justina Case, Their Ward

2021 WY 47 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2021

law was clearly established and whether the defendant’s conduct was proscribed by such clearly established law without reviewing the merits of the case. … The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not “clearly established,” Harlow v.

Brown v. Jenne

122 So. 3d 881 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 1, 2012

Qualified Immunity Standard “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established … As to the second determination for qualified immunity, the Thompson court found that the excessiveness of the force was clearly established at the time of the incident, which in Thompson occurred in 1998.

Barnett v. Mount Vernon Police Department

523 F. App'x 811 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 3, 2013

The defense will succeed only where entitlement to qualified immunity can be established “based [solely] on facts appearing on the face of the complaint.” McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 2004). … The existence of either actual probable cause or arguable probable cause establishes qualified immunity from a false arrest claim, see Savino, 331 F.3d at 76; therefore, the sole issue on this appeal is whether the defendants

Leibel v. City of Buckeye

382 F. Supp. 3d 909 · District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 9, 2019

As Officer Grossman correctly states, denial of qualified immunity is only appropriate where an official's conduct violates "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would be aware 'in light … In retrospect, it would have been preferable to provide a comparable level of analysis concerning the clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity test (which the Court has attempted to supply below).