Case law

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.”).

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.

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.

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

Mawson v. Pittston Police Department

145 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2015

The defendant objects to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established. (Doc. 93, p. 13). … Again, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the court must determine whether the facts — taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — establish a violation of clearly established law and that a reasonable

Harris County v. Nagel

349 S.W.3d 769 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Oct 5, 2011

Identification of the clearly established law is not a question of fact to be established by evidence. … This would not be qualified immunity, but absolute immunity.

Webb v. Johnson

District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 4, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

S. B. v. County of San Diego

864 F.3d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 2017

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 9 clearly established law, so qualified immunity was not appropriate. … Moreover, even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which plaintiffs rely are insufficient.