Case law

Sanchez v. Sanchez

777 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 8, 1991

If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity. … As the reasoning in these cases demonstrates, where the right is clearly established, a defendant to a claim requiring proof of impermissible motive is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

776 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … As discussed, the qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that the right was clearly established. Morgan v.

Jacob Pfaller v. Mark Amonette

55 F.4th 436 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 15, 2022

immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established. … was clearly established.

Ellison Ex Rel. Estate of Ellison v. Lesher

796 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity, we have authority to decide the purely legal issue whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff support a claim of violation of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v.

Haynes v. City of Beaumont

35 S.W.3d 166 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 8, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In practice, whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of clearly established legal rules at the time the

Smith v. United States

337 U.S. 137 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 31, 1949

S. 547 , it was established that absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for offenses disclosed by the evidence must be given a person compelled to testify after claim of privilege against self-incrimination. … no reason why *150 a witness cannot qualify and limit his claim as the examination proceeds, just as he can make new claims as to issues he has not waived.” 169 F. 2d at 861 . 10 Raffel v.

Nelson v. Giurbino

395 F. Supp. 2d 946 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 20, 2005

Relying on these cases and decisions, Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional right to access internet generated materials was clearly established and concludes that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Since Plaintiffs fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court finds that Defendant Grannis is entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

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

Mikko v. City of Atlanta, Georgia

857 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 26, 2017

Clearly Established Law To deprive the prosecutors of qualified immunity Mikko must show that their alleged actions violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of their conduct … In order for the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the unlawfulness of the defendant’s actions must be apparent in light of pre-existing law. Hope v.

Estate of Wayne Anderson v. John Marsh

985 F.3d 726 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 15, 2021

At oral argument, Marsh’s counsel conceded that the qualified immunity analysis turns on “[w]hether Officer Marsh reasonably perceived that [Anderson] was making a threatening movement,” and that it was “clearly established … MARSH conduct ‘did not violate the [Constitution] and, in any event, did not violate clearly established law.’”

Dejuan Hopson v. Jacob Alexander

71 F.4th 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 16, 2023

Washington therefore does not qualify as clearly established law for purposes of the qualified immunity inquiry in this case. Hopson next points to our decision in Espinosa. See 598 F.3d at 537–39. … Notably, Robinson itself granted qualified immunity to the officers because the constitutional right that had been violated was not clearly established at the time. 278 F.3d at 1015–16.

Carter v. City of Philadelphia

181 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 1999

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974)) (emphasis added). 19 Eleventh Amendment immunity is an affirmative defense and the burden is thus on the DA's Office to establish its immunity from suit. See Christy v. … PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY 42 We must begin with "[t]he presumption . . . that qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties" and the observation that the

Schneyder v. Smith

709 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2010

Detention As a Material Witness Requires Probable Cause Under Third Circuit law, “a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … would have known that those rights were clearly established constitutional rights. 2.

James T. Voutour v. Harold Vitale, James T. Voutour v. Harold Vitale

761 F.2d 812 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 9, 1985

established statutory or *819 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Like Wheeler, Chief Forni raised a qualified good faith immunity defense against Voutour’s section 1983 claim.

Salas v. United States

District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2024

United States, 571 U.S. 591 (2015), the Tenth Circuit vacated Salas’ § 924(c) conviction on the ground that arson was not a qualifying “crime of violence” and remanded for resentencing. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”).

Cozayatl Sampedro v. Schriro

377 F. Supp. 3d 133 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 28, 2019

Sampedro cannot establish that he violated a clearly established right and, therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity in any event. … similar circumstances. 4 See Allah, 876 F.3d at 59 (holding defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where relevant precedent *143 did not clearly establish that a substantive due process would result from disputed

Scott Allin v. City of Springfield

845 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 11, 2017

Qualified Immunity Framework The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Volkman v. Ryker

736 F.3d 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2013

Qualified Immunity and “Clearly Established” Rights In addition to ruling against Volkman outright on the issue of constitutional protection, the district court found that the defendants were shielded by the doctrine of qualified … Governmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy “qualified immunity,” meaning that they are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Teresa Graham v. Shannon Barnette

5 F.4th 872 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

She also argues that probable cause was the clearly established standard at the time, meaning the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. … The officers also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim because their seizure of Graham did not violate clearly established law.

Peoples v. Leon

63 F.4th 132 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 20, 2023

Peoples also argues that Alexander 8 and Leon are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights. … In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we must determine whether any constitutional right that the defendant violated “was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Wilson v.