Case law

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 .

Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Systems Protection Board

165 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 1999

This is clearly not the equivalent of an 18-month suspension without pay. … While Davis involved a challenge to different tax treatment of federal and state retirees' retirement benefits, the challenge was not based on equal protection, but on a federal statute which preserves federal employees’ immunity

Brosseau v. Haugen

543 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 13, 2004

not entitled to qualified immunity. … We grant the petition on the second, qualified immunity question and reverse.

Hitoshi Yoshikawa v. Troy Seguirant

41 F.4th 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2022

Because there is a circuit split, he claims that there is no clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. We are not persuaded by this argument. … Simply put, invoking McDonnell Douglas at this stage created unnecessary confusion over the clearly established law test for qualified immunity.

Torres v. Goddard

194 F. Supp. 3d 886 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 1, 2016

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … As a matter of law, clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes is the law clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Brockington v. City of Philadelphia

354 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are generally immune from trial ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

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

Martinique Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections

705 F.3d 560 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

Taken together, these sentences clearly suffice as an assertion of qualified immunity. … Dunagan focuses on whether the law regarding same- sex strip searches is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. However, No. 11-1588 Stoudemire v. Mich.

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.

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.

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.

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.”).

Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Moritz

39 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1987

Appellants assert the following as their sole assignment of error: “The trial court erred in denying defendants-appellants’ good faith immunity defense where defendants-appellants violated no clearly established constitutional … Harlow holds that until the threshold question of immunity is resolved, whether the law or right which the official is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the appeal violation and whether a reasonable

State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN CTY. OF MARICOPA

185 Ariz. 47 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 20, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government agents if a reasonable government officer could have believed his actions to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time. Hunter v. … First, no “clearly established” legal rights were violated. Plaintiff Donaldson bears the burden of showing that “the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Romero v.

Mierzwa v. City of Garfield

170 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2005

Finally, the Court found that because the State is immune from liability under § 1983, the Mierzwas’ due process claim lacks merit. … In addition, the individual Garfield defendants (police and prosecutor) enjoy qualified immunity as their conduct in investigating the incident between Edward and Thomas did not violate clearly established constitutional

DiMeglio v. Haines

45 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1995

“clearly established law” has an acquired meaning in the qualified immunity context referencing law at the time of the challenged conduct. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.