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.”

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

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.

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.

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."

Tom Johnson v. Patrick McCarver

942 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 1, 2019

was clearly established at the time of the incident. … McCarver and LaLuzerne violated Johnson’s clearly established right and qualified immunity does not apply.

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.”

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.

Jetta Elliott v. Dusty Morgan, in His Official Capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Boone County

603 S.W.3d 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 13, 2020

Toward this end, police officers have qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know. Harlow v. … A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established

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.’”

Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In Re J & S Properties, LLC)

872 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 2017

clearly established law. … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts ‘showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Coliseum Enterprises, Inc. v. Campbell

173 Vt. 585 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Feb 25, 2002

qualified immunity. … To overcome the commissioners’ qualified immunity defense, therefore, plaintiffs must identify a “clearly established” right that was violated by the rescission of their application.

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.

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.

Santiago v. Leik

179 Wis. 2d 786 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Oct 28, 1993

Thus, if at the time the challenged act occurred the law identifying the act as a constitutional violation was not clearly established, qualified immunity protects the official from suit. … The Barnhill court noted that confusion regarding qualified immunity "derives from the level of generality that should be afforded to 'clearly established law' at the time of the alleged unlawful act."

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

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

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 .

Steven Kulkay v. Tom Roy

847 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2017

But “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … The officials are thus entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, because Kulkay fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, he is not entitled to discovery before dismissal.