Case law

Sawyers v. Norton

962 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 23, 2020

(2) The three officers were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because “it is . . . clearly established by Tenth Circuit precedent that [Mr.] … Although they describe the law of qualified immunity, including the clearly established law requirement, see Aplt.

Roxanne Adams v. Debra Ferguson

884 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Mullenix v. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

886 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2018

Rights may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by one of three methods: (1) “case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right,” (2) “a broad statement of principle within … We further determine that these rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.

McIntire v. State

458 N.W.2d 714 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 7, 1990

. § 1983 , the trial court correctly determined that agency's executive director, personnel director, and supervisor had a qualified immunity from liability for conduct which did not violate clearly established constitutional … To penetrate the government officials' qualified immunity, the balance must be in favor of the employee to a degree that evidences a clearly established right.

Emmons v. City of Escondido

168 F. Supp. 3d 1265 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court recently summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity. … conduct is clearly established.”

Sean Rambert, Sr. v. City of Greenville

107 F.4th 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

But an officer is not entitled to “qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … But that is not how the clearly established prong of qualified immunity works. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

Rangel v. Lorum

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 23, 2019

Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 667 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of qualified immunity for supervisor of parole agent who failed to respond to complaints by plaintiff parolee that agent was sexually harassing him). … Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms, the Eighth Amendment right of prisoners to be free from sexual abuse was unquestionably clearly established prior to the time of

Lee v. Greene

114 N.C. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1994

The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … The threshold question regarding a defense of qualified immunity is whether defendants have violated a “clearly established” right. Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 313 .

Douglas v. Galloway

568 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 25, 1983

The Governor bases his immunity claim on two different doctrines: the qualified immunity accorded state executive officials in § 1983 cases, as enunciated in Harlow v. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

The Estate of Donald Nash v. Henry Folsom

92 F.4th 746 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 9, 2024

The court then held that the right was clearly established and proceeded to deny the officers qualified immunity on Count I. … Clearly Established “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Young v. Scales

873 A.2d 337 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2005

that a defendant had qualified immunity. … Thus, to overcome qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated “must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that

Tellier v. Fields

280 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

of clearly established rights. … Horne supports the need to address the constitutional question when a court finds that qualified immunity does not exist because the right asserted is clearly established.

Anthony Martinez v. James Yates

585 F. App'x 460 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2014

There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent dictating when a trial in state court must be severed. Runningeagle v. … However, we have held that this footnote in Lane does not qualify as clearly established federal law under federal habeas law. Collins v.

Parmelee v. Schnader

2018 Ohio 707 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2018

Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). {¶22} A governmental official sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 may assert the defense of qualified immunity when their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. citing Silberstein v.

Juan Hernandez v. City of San Jose

897 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 2018

Taking the allegations in the operative complaint as true, and reading them in the light most favorable to the Attendees, we find the Officers violated clearly established rights and are not entitled to qualified immunity … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Goetz v. Noble

652 So. 2d 1203 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 29, 1995

Qualified immunity affords government officials performing discretionary functions protection from liability under section 1983 where their conduct does not violate what reasonable people would recognize as a clearly established … Harlow 's "clearly established" standard demands that a bright line be crossed.

Piphus v. Blum

108 Ohio App. 3d 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

would believe was lawful in light of “clearly established law” and “information possessed” at the time of the challenged conduct. … In the absence of that clearly established right, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Betances v. Fischer

140 F. Supp. 3d 294 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 14, 2015

APPLICABLE LAW “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2010) ("Even where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

PHILLIPS v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pa. 2001) (“[T]he right to be free from the fabrication of evidence, falsifying documents, and malicious prosecution is clearly established.”).

Anderson v. City of Hopkins

400 N.W.2d 350 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 10, 1987

This appeal is from an order denying summary judgment and rejecting appellants’ qualified immunity defense. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.