Case law

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.”

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.”

Johnnie Williams v. Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland

917 F.3d 763 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2019

After discovery, Strickland and Heroux each moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Iko, 535 F.3d at 233.

State Ex Rel Juvenile Department v. Tucker

76 Or. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1985

The state does not argue persuasively that the experts did possess special knowledge of Indian life, but it contends that they were nevertheless qualified, because they had the necessary expertise to establish beyond a reasonable … However, when cultural bias is clearly not implicated, the necessary proof may be provided by expert witnesses who do not possess special knowledge of Indian life.

Green v. Thomas

129 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

In finding clearly established law, the district court overlooked Espinal v. … particular case at hand” and granting qualified immunity because “the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct in this case was not clearly established”). 35 See Bailey v.

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.

Mitchell v. Township of Willingboro Municipality Government

913 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2012

The Third Circuit has clearly held that “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v. … Defendant Perez does not argue that Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights in this case were not clearly established. Consequently, the Plaintiffs complaint satisfies the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis

43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 288 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

The motion for summary judgment argued that as a matter of law the plaintiff failed to plead specific facts that would indicate a violation of clearly established law. … The motion then argued extensively that as a matter of law Fain and Winchester were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Churchill v. University of Colorado at Boulder

285 P.3d 986 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 10, 2012

Third, we hold that Churchill's bad faith investigation claim is barred by qualified immunity because the Regents' investigation into Churchill's academic record does not implicate a clearly established statutory or constitutional … . 1839 Qualified immunity applies to a public official's conduct when she takes a discretionary action that a reasonable person would not know violates a clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiff.

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.

Patrick Dockery v. Sherrie Blackburn

911 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). … Qualified-immunity analysis usually entails a two-step inquiry: we ask (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly

Ramirez v. Escajeda

44 F.4th 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Escajeda next argues that, fact disputes aside, he is still entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. We agree.

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

Hensley Ex Rel. North Carolina v. Price

876 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

clearly established law. … It contains no argument on the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. It contains no citation to cases actually applying the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

Dangler v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp.

193 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 23, 1999

The court noted that at the time of Dangler’s termination, “it was not clearly established in this Circuit that the policymaker exception did not immunize employers from liability in Pickering type situations,” 1998 WL 599711 … did not- violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Department

577 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

established for purposes of qualified immunity. … That Dwares does not discuss the "shocks the conscience” standard, however, does not establish qualified immunity.

Edward Monk v. Alvernon Rogers

2021 Ark. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2021

from damages under section 1983 7 unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Monk, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly

McCoy v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2021

See Mot. at 17–18. 1 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability 2 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional … actions, 18 as clearly established law).

T.A. VS. ERICK MELGAR (L-0466-12, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2018

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (stating the doctrine of qualified immunity, protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, "a defendant cannot have qualified immunity if she was deliberately indifferent; a reasonable [prison official] could not believe that her actions comported with clearly established law

Kauch v. Department for Children, Youth & Their Families

321 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 14, 2003

A three-part test is used to determine if an official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, a court considers whether "the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." … Second, we determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.