Case law

Jeremy Boudoin v. Terral Harsson

962 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [§] 1983 action, unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory law of which a reasonable person would have known … In denying Harsson qualified immunity, the district court cited Nance v.

Estate of Clemente N. Aguirre v. County of Riverside

29 F.4th 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 24, 2022

The Clearly Established Inquiry Because the Najeras have presented facts sufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment violation, we consider the second prong of qualified immunity: whether the law was clearly established … The posture of this interlocutory appeal coupled with clearly established law supports the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. IV.

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

Janowski v. City of North Wildwood

259 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 5, 2017

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”).

Krupien v. Ritcey

112 N.E.3d 302 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 26, 2018

"[T]he relevant inquiry on summary judgment as to the defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … established religious rights. 13 Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

George Cooper, Sr. v. James Sheehan

735 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2013

Forsyth, seek to apply clearly established law to a given set of facts, we are properly vested with jurisdiction. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313. … As we have explained, “qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could

Peoples v. Leon

63 F.4th 132 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 20, 2023

Peoples also argues that Alexander 8 and Leon are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights. … In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we must determine whether any constitutional right that the defendant violated “was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Wilson v.

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.

Seekamp v. Michaud

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 27, 1997

immunity. … immunity claims.

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.

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).

Thomas v. City of Phila.

290 F. Supp. 3d 371 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2018

Instead, the Court concludes that any procedural due process right is not (and was not at the relevant time) clearly established, meaning that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity in this case. A. … In any event, the real battle on the Brady count is qualified immunity: did police officers (as opposed to prosecutors) have clearly established Brady duties in 1993? In Gibson v.

Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra

965 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 14, 2020

Nor were the officers entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law under the “clearly established” prong of the inquiry: “[D]etaining [Hicks] under these circumstances – when the officers had a reasonable suspicion … Nor, again, could Phillips show that the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. Id.

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

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).

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.”

Bartlett v. Cinemark USA, Inc.

908 S.W.2d 229 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 11, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 12 (1st Cir.1993) (recognizing that Supreme Court has not clearly explained role of “discretionary functions” in qualified immunity analysis).

Tate v. Alexander

527 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 30, 1981

Some controversy has developed over the years concerning exactly how one can tell that a particular constitutional right has become “clearly established” for purposes of applying qualified immunity for official actions, and … was therefore not clearly established.

Venable v. Keever

61 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 24, 1999

Defendants assert that they are each entitled to qualified immunity from suit because in filing the counterclaim Keever was performing a discretionary act, did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Grohs v. Yatauro

984 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2013

The qualified immunity analysis Qualified immunity protects government officials such as Defendants Yatauro and Lanigan from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or … Whether the Complaint alleges a constitutional violation that is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity Grohs’ claim that inadequate hot water at the STU impaired the safety and well-being of its residents