Case 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

Jennifer L.M. LeMay v. Michael B. Mays

18 F.4th 283 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 2021

Clearly Established We then turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis⸺whether the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Dillard, 961 F.3d at 1052. … and entitling him to qualified immunity.

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

Birdo v. Gomez

214 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 17, 2016

qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Julie Ballou v. James McElvain

29 F.4th 413 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 2021

As Ballou’s disparate treatment claim alleged that McElvain violated her clearly established rights under the Equal Protection Clause, McElvain was not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. … As Ballou’s disparate treatment claim alleged that McElvain violated her clearly established rights under the Equal Protection Clause, McElvain is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

Sause v. Bauer

859 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2017

First, she argues that the defendants aren’t entitled to qualified immunity because they violated her clearly established rights under the First Amendment. … Second, she argues that even assuming the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the contours of that right aren’t clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity doesn’t shield them from her claims

Pinkins v. City of Racine

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 30, 2022

The use of such force establishes a constitutional violation, and if the right violated was clearly established at the time of the officer’s actions, then qualified immunity does not attach. … If one view of the disputed facts could lead a jury to conclude that an officer violated a clearly established constitutional right, the officer may not seek qualified immunity based on an alternative, more advantageous

McQueen v. Williams

587 So. 2d 918 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1991

The state law and the affidavits submitted by [McQueen] clearly establish that the Sheriff's actions, as done in the totality of circumstances, were totally discretionary. … a claim of violation of clearly established law."

Harrison v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2021

Ct. 26 831 (Jan. 23, 2017) (qualified immunity looks at whether the right was clearly established when the defendant acted). … See e.g., S.B., 864 F.3d at 1015 (qualified 7 immunity looks at whether the right was clearly established when the defendant acted).

Dickson v. City of Clovis

148 N.M. 831 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2010

It granted Defendant Parkin qualified immunity, determining that “there was no apparent violation of a clearly established constitutional right” because it was reasonable for Defendant Parkin to have been uncertain as to … , granted Defendant Parkin qualified immunity, which entitled him to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries

567 So. 2d 1081 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Sep 6, 1990

Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity. … If the defendant shows that the state constitutional right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Starko, Inc. v. Gallegos

140 N.M. 136 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2006

Qualified immunity should be recognized where, under the particular facts, it was objectively reasonable for the government official to believe that his or her acts did not violate a clearly established right. Yount v. … Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 515 , 114 S.Ct. 1019 , 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994) (describing Davis as answering the “discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including

Arlane James v. New Jersey State Police

957 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held liable for damages when their conduct does not violate a citizen’s clearly established rights. … Trooper Bartelt is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Gibbons’s clearly established rights.

Autry v. Western Kentucky University

219 S.W.3d 713 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2007

However, even if an act is discretionary, there is no immunity if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights, or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to harm, or if it is committed … Viewed in this light, WKU clearly is entitled to governmental immunity.

PAULOS VS. FCH1, LLC

2020 NV 2 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

Mahan concluded that Officer Baca was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Paulos v. … Noting the two-prong showing for overcoming qualified immunity—that (1) the officers violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established—the Ninth Circuit used its

Abouzari v. Foster

14 Brief Times Rptr. 984 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 1990

The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the applicable law was clearly established at the time in question, and the failure to establish a clearly existing constitutional standard derived from authority in a … a jury question on the issue of qualified immunity.

Lambert v. RIVERBOAT GAMING ENFORC. DIV.

706 So. 2d 172 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1997

In support of their application, defendants contend that the trial court erred: (1) in ruling that defendants had established the qualified immunity defense, yet failing to grant their exception of no cause of action and … Accordingly, in Kyle , this court examined the pleadings to determine whether the plaintiff had set forth material facts therein which, if taken as true, showed that defendants had violated a clearly established right of

McBeth v. Himes

598 F.3d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 8, 2010

violated clearly established law.” … Himes contends, however, that even if he possessed a retaliatory motive when he spoke to DHS, he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of

A. D. v. State of Calif. Highway Patrol

712 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

The Court then rejected the notion that the law, defined at such a level of generality, was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Markgraf is not entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiffs have shown that he violated the foregoing clearly established law.

Daniels, Michael v. Knight, Stanley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2007

The Strickland framework was clearly established by the time the Indiana trial court denied Daniels’ first post-conviction appeal on February 21, 1985. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 391 (“It is past question No. 05-2620 13 that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the