Case law

Mohamed Sabra v. Maricopa County Community Coll

44 F.4th 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

of qualified immunity, as there was no case law clearly establishing that his conduct was unconstitutional at the time of the alleged offense. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of 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

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.

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.

Martin v. City of Eastlake

686 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 18, 1988

Put simply, if a defendant did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. … If a defendant did violate a clearly established constitutional right, he was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Clemente N. Aguirre v. County of Riverside

29 F.4th 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 24, 2022

The Clearly Established Inquiry Because the Najeras have presented facts sufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment violation, we consider the second prong of qualified immunity: whether the law was clearly established … The posture of this interlocutory appeal coupled with clearly established law supports the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. IV.

SERVAIS v. CACCIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2023

Second, the Court considers “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.” Id. “An answer in the negative to either prong entitles an officer to qualified immunity.” … See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (stating that qualified immunity applies unless “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct” (emphasis added)).

Amy's Enterprises v. Sorrell

174 Vt. 623 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Dec 18, 2002

“[I]f the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability.” Id. … In the absence of any clearly established rules governing this situation, it cannot be said that no reasonable officers would not have acted in the same manner. ¶ 10.

Alley v. Bettencourt

134 Ohio App. 3d 303 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1999

The officers filed for summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity barred Alley’s federal claims, because Alley could not prove that they violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Alley responded to the officers’ motion for summary judgment, arguing that qualified immunity did not bar his federal claims, because the officers violated his clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment

Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company v. United States of America, International Trademark Association, Amicus Curiae

86 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 1996

We start our analysis with the well-established proposition that the United States may not be sued without its consent. See Affiliated Ute Citizens v. … that the agency action had transgressed and establish that the statute or regulation applies to the United States.

Mohamed ex rel. A.M. v. Irving Independent School District

252 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 18, 2017

Principal Cummings asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff has failed to plead facts showing that he violated any of A.M.’s clearly established constitutional rights. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts ... to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Mullenix v.

Administrator Larry Crawford, individually and in his official capacity, Captain Carl Aldridge, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Paul Diamond, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Don Vance, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. David Rodes, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Joshua Scarberry, individually and in his official capacity, and The West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority v. Michael A. McDonald

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2023

McDonald disagrees that Petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity. … established law for qualified immunity purposes because it does not prescribe any specific behavior by the supervisory defendants and does not clearly define any rights.

Ali Shamaeizadeh v. Joel Cunigan

338 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

Furthermore, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this aspect of Shamaeizadeh’s § 1983 claim because their unconstitutional conduct “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which … Even though the officers violated Shamaeizadeh’s clearly established constitutional rights, they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if Shamaeizadeh has failed to offer sufficient evidence that the officers’ actions

Adam Saetrum v. Jake Vogt

673 F. App'x 688 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2016

Cases from this and other circuits clearly established that using a car as an impact weapon constituted at least a significant, intermediate level of force. See Young v. … The Takedown Claim With respect to the takedown claim, by contrast, Vogt’s actions did not violate clearly established law.

Hurdsman v. Commander Pokluda

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 13, 2020

Qualified Immunity “A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof.” Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). … Guendry, 703 F.3d 757, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity will not protect officers who apply excessive force merely because their means of apply it are novel; further, Graham excessive force factors “can ‘clearly

Tracy Ray Vaughan v. James D. Ricketts

859 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 14, 1988

Ricketts moved for summary judgment, claiming a qualified immunity from suit because the law governing body cavity searches of inmates was not clearly established as of March 1984. … Finally, the district court found that clearly established standards existed under the eighth and fourteenth amendments as well. The court thus refused to grant Ricketts qualified immunity on any of Vaughan’s claims.

Smiley

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 12, 2026

But the arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other qualified immunity case … Clearly Established Law To prevail against the assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show—in addition to a constitutional violation— that “when the

West Virginia Department of Education v. McGraw

239 W. Va. 192 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 17, 2017

, qualified immunity bars recovery for Ms. … The DOE argues that qualified immunity bars this claim for two reasons: (1) the facts alleged in the complaint do not outline a liberty interest violation (or any other clearly-established constitutional or statutory violation

Bearman v. California Medical Board

176 Cal. App. 4th 1588 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2009

In determining whether supervisor has qualified immunity, we “undertake a two-step analysis: ‘(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … To avoid the qualified immunity defense, appellant must show that supervisor’s conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. [Citations.]”

G.M. ex rel. B.M. v. Casalduc

982 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 4, 2013

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … with police assistance is not clearly established).

Slade v. Vernon

110 N.C. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1993

The sole question upon review is whether the trial court erred in denying defendants’ summary judgment motion based upon public officers’ immunity, governmental immunity and qualified immunity. … In general, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of