Case law

District of Columbia v. Evans

644 A.2d 1008 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1994

1988 liability, an officer’s acts must clearly violate a clearly established right. … Deliberately shooting someone without just cause clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, and thus would preclude qualified immunity from § 1983 liability.

Bell v. City of Albany

210 Ga. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 23, 1993

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … App. 798 ( 432 SE2d 593 ) (1993). 4 Qualified immunity is a question of law for the court. Stone v.

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.

Brown v. Scott

329 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 26, 2004

The defendant claims that he is entitled to a dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the undisputed facts do not demonstrate a violation of the plaintiffs clearly established Eighth Amendment rights. … further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).

Walker v. Ryals

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 2023

Because the above failure to protect law was clearly established prior to the May 2022 fight, I conclude Officer Huett and Corporal Barnat are not entitled to qualified immunity on this failure to protect claim. … And, because that law was clearly established before May 2022, I conclude Defendant Barnat is not entitled to qualified immunity on this excessive force claim. 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.

Petcu v. State

121 Wash. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu’s clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 65-66 .

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.

Bartell v. Lohiser

215 F.3d 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 2000

No defendants may assert qualified immunity. … However, this Circuit, as well as a number of “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right has been our sister Circuits, have granted state employees qualified immunity violated; and second, we ascertain whether

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

Hudson v. Zeettergren

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 8, 2020

However, qualified immunity shields the Defendant Officers from Hudson’s claim because they did not violate clearly established law. See White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

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.

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

Boyler v. City of Lackawanna

287 F. Supp. 3d 308 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 27, 2018

the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.' " McGowan v. … To this point, "[a]n officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he can establish that there was 'arguable probable cause' to arrest." Adebiyi v.

Carradine v. State

494 N.W.2d 77 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 29, 1992

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Carradine failed to show the search of his person was conducted with excessive force or violated any clearly established law.