Case law

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.’”

Carey v. City of Fall River

708 F. Supp. 431 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1988

Thus, the court concludes that no constitutional counterpart of malicious prosecution or abuse of process was clearly established in 1983 and, therefore, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this … The Supreme Court has found that provisions in police regulations will not serve to clearly establish federal law for qualified immunity purposes. See Davis v.

Woods v. Harris County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

We first address whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Deputy on the basis of qualified immunity. … Hudson, 933 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Because nonprecedential opinions do not establish any binding law for the circuit, they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.”

Sweeney v. Bond

669 F.2d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 1982

The district court held that the Governor’s qualified immunity protected him from deposition absent a showing by plaintiffs of specific need.

Wood v. City of Alamogordo

8 N.M. Ct. App. 43 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2015

Qualified Immunity, Clearly Established Law, and Trujillo 2 {7} We begin by addressing Wood’s argument that the district court erred in 3 concluding he failed to establish that Trujillo violated clearly established … New Mexico Board of Examiners of Optometry to argue 10 that Trujillo violated clearly established law and is therefore not entitled to qualified 11 immunity. 1979-NMSC-005, 92 N.M. 414, 589 P.2d 198.

Harmon v. City of Arlington

16 F.4th 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

First, the plaintiffs argue that Tran is not entitled to qualified immunity because his use of excessive force violated a clearly established constitutional right. … To overcome qualified immunity, the law must be so clearly established that every reasonable officer in this factual context—an officer holding onto the side of a fleeing car where the driver has ignored instructions

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

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.

Siddique v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2025

Indeed, Inoa’s own description of why he is entitled to qualified immunity touches upon several areas in dispute: [I]t was not clearly established that Officer … That seems unlikely because the language “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights” in the context of failure to intervene borrows from the qualified immunity doctrine, see Riccitui, 124 F.3d at 129, and

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.

Melene James v. City of Boise

160 Idaho 466 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2016

The Court explained why the “clearly established law” could not be so general that it would eliminate the rale of qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, the court of appeals held that there was no clearly established law that the officer’s “use of a police dog to search and bite was unconstitutional.” Id. at 1092 .

Washington v. Lambert

98 F.3d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 28, 1996

Because Lambert clearly violated Washington and Hicks’ Fourth Amendment rights, we affirm both the denial of qualified immunity and the grant of judgment as a matter of law. … The first question is whether the right at issue is clearly established and stated with particularity. Alexander, 64 F.3d at 1319.

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.”

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

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

Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13

880 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1994

immunity because no clearly established rights existed); Doe v. … established, and is not entitled to qualified immunity).

O'Connor v. Donovan

191 Vt. 412 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 13, 2012

All were performed in good faith, i.e., they did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, and all were discretionary. Id. at 189-92 , 559 A.2d at 1081-83 . … The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 419 n.13 (1976).

Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Romer

20 Brief Times Rptr. 1044 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

clearly established statutory or *90 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … What is “clearly established law” is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use “its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents.”

King v. State

242 Cal. App. 4th 245 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2015

But Defendants are only entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light most favorable to [the Plaintiff], they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … The state and Tawney premise their 26 qualified immunity claim on an extremely narrow, factually detailed view of what the clearly established law would be in this case.