Case law

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.

B.R. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Children and Families, and Child Protective Services

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Feb 8, 2024

is necessary to defeat the defense of qualified immunity. … Code § 49-6A-9, which would overcome qualified immunity.

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.

Jose Elizondo v. City of Garland Police Dep

671 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2012

West, 662 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir.2011), but the same does not hold for an order granting qualified immunity. An order granting immunity can be fully and fairly reviewed after a final judgment. See Thompson v. … To establish the use of excessive force in violation of the Constitution, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness

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.

Basinski v. City of New York

192 F. Supp. 3d 360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 14, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In addition, in order to be “clearly established” for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis, “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”).

Tormasi v. Lanigan

363 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." *538 Mammaro v. … clearly established right to circumcision."