Case law

Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717)

218 N.J. 72 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 2014

It held, however, that those rights were not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore dismissed the claims against the officials on the ground of qualified immunity. 1 Gormley v. … The Appellate Division, nevertheless, concluded that that right was not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore granted defendants qualified immunity and dismissed the federal civil-rights

Maness v. Daily

307 P.3d 894 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2013

Fitzgerald.17 Under this standard, qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established.”27 In short, because Maness cannot show pursuant to his theory of liability that the troopers violated any of his clearly established rights, the troopers are protected by qualified immunity from Maness’s excessive

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.

Payne v. Breuer

891 S.W.2d 200 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1994

In the case under submission, Breuer chose the latter and attempted to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, we hold that Breuer’s actions were not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Therefore, Breuer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

James A. Conrad v. New Hampshire Department of Safety & a.

167 N.H. 59 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Nov 6, 2014

Qualified immunity protects police officers “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 known. … It is clear from the Supreme Court’s description of the second, “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis that the second step, in turn, has two aspects.

Daniels v. CITY OF HARTFORD, ALA.

645 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 18, 2009

In the context of qualified immunity cases that turn on the presence or absence of probable cause, an official has not committed a clearly established constitutional violation if either actual or arguable probable cause existed … a clearly established constitutional right. 12 Thus, the Court finds that Sheriff Olsen is protected from suit for the conditions of confinement at the Dale County Detention Facility by the doctrine of qualified immunity

Andrew B. Bloom v. Melissa Peacock

498 F. App'x 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2012

Further, a defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” St. George v. … To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must determine (i) whether the plaintiff’s allegations establish a constitutional violation, and (ii) whether the constitutional violation was clearly

Linn v. Louisiana Workforce Commission

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jan 10, 2024

Title I of the ADA prohibits states from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee … Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 326 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002) (finding that the Fifth Circuit has “long recognized that Congress has clearly abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting Title VII”).

Eric Earnest, Jr. v. Genesee Cnty., Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … clearly established).

Mattson v. Streibel

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 20, 2023

violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless a plaintiff proves: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Cecilia Perry v. Jermanda Adams

993 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2021

Because Adams’s conduct did not violate the detainee’s clearly established rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, we reverse. … Because Adams is a public official asserting a defense of qualified immunity, she is immune from suit under § 1983 unless her actions violated constitutional or statutory rights that were clearly established at the time of

Hsien I. Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu Jonathan Hu S. Gage, Los Angeles County Deputy, Badge No. 406857, Sued Individually

335 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2003

The first order granted Deputy Gage qualified immunity from suit. … Qualified Immunity Next, we address whether Gage was properly'granted qualified immunity.

Brescher v. Pirez

696 So. 2d 370 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 30, 1997

questionable conduct violated clearly established law. … the plaintiff's rights in light of clearly established law.

United States v. Bennett

868 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 5, 2017

On that basis, we held that the defendant's conviction could not qualify as a conviction for a crime that had as an element the "use . . . of physical force" because the "government ha[d] not established the offense of harmful … If anything, then, the force clause in § 16 would seem to be less clearly encompassing of reckless conduct than the residual clause in § 16.

Jose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith

994 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2021

Haser and Officer White were entitled to qualified immunity because Peroza-Benitez’s constitutional rights at issue were not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … At summary judgment, the burden is on the officer to establish an entitlement to qualified immunity. Halsey, 750 F.3d at 288.

Umar v. Scott

991 S.W.2d 512 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 10, 1999

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individual government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Furthermore, we hold that Appellees’ actions in complying with the policy were objectively reasonable, and Appellees’ have established, as a matter of law, their entitlement to qualified immunity.

Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

ASHCROFT lates the Constitution, we should still grant him qualified immunity because that constitutional right was not “clearly established” in March 2003, when al-Kidd was arrested. We disagree. … Ohio, was certainly clearly established.

Butler Ex Rel. Biller v. Bayer

123 Nev. 450 · Nevada Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2007

Qualified immunity under federal law In 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for damages resulting from discretionary acts, so long as those acts do not violate clearly … Here, because the facts as alleged by Butler do not establish any Eighth Amendment violation, a finding of qualified immunity was appropriate under Saucier. 23 Because Smith is entitled to qualified immunity, we need not

Mark A. Campbell v. Kevin Kallas

936 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2019

As relevant here, the judge rejected the claim of qualified immunity, concluding that caselaw clearly established a constitutional right to effective medical treatment. We reverse. … Because no case clearly establishes that denying treatment beyond hormone therapy is unconstitu- tional, qualified immunity applies regardless.