Case law

Lombardo v. Saint Louis City

361 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 1, 2019

established right and were entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants have appealed the portion of the court's order denying them qualified immunity based on whether the law was clearly established law. The same is true for Hopper v.

Morris v. Huebsch

3 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 28, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for “performing discretionary functions in the course of duty to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Under the second prong, the plaintiff must show that “the right was clearly established.” Id. Whether a right was clearly established at the relevant time is a question of law, Lewis v.

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.

Bellamy v. Wells

626 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 15, 2009

Defendants maintain that they did not violate Bellamy’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, but even if they did they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not contravene any clearly established constitutional … immunity when there is a violation of clearly established federal law.

Ron Nord v. Walsh County

757 F.3d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

If, upon application of the test, Nord’s rights were not clearly established, Wild is, of course, entitled to a qualified immunity defense against Nord’s claims. … immunity because Wild’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. *745 III.

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

Ande v. Rock

256 Wis. 2d 365 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · May 16, 2002

Qualified immunity overview. ¶ 15. … Wisconsin or federal case law *388 clearly establishing such an interest. Therefore, we conclude that qualified immunity bars all their federal claims. 16 CONCLUSION ¶ 22.

Lawless v. Sadeck

63 F.4th 61 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 2023

, concluding that it is clearly established that a “sham” disciplinary hearing does not satisfy due process. … established law for purposes of our qualified immunity inquiry.

Newhard v. Borders

649 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 2, 2009

who allegedly searched through Newhard’s phone after the arrest is entitled to qualified immunity because Newhard’s constitutional right to be free from such a search under the Fourth Amendment was not “clearly established … The Unnamed Officer who allegedly searched through the cell phone did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right of New-hard’s under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Glover v. Gartman

899 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 27, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifted Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Showalter v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety

183 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2007

Defendants argue the trial court erred in concluding that Trooper Emmons was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right which plaintiff alleges to have been violated was not clearly established at the time and because … The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Amber Jackson v. Cody Swanger

97 F.4th 1343 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2024

An officer exercising a dis- cretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that his investigatory stop violated the Fourth Amendment unless “he was violating clearly established law.” … Brandt’s assertion that he did not violate clearly established law when he stopped the vehicle is a “core qualified immunity is- sue[].” Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1484 (quotation marks omitted).

Tom Heaney v. Christopher Roberts

846 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2017

Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because his actions as sergeant-at-arms were not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. We affirm on that claim. D. … But an officer is only denied qualified immunity if his or her actions are objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. See, e.g., Blackwell v.

Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis

38 F.4th 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

In concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of a clearly established right, we stated that, under the cases in this circuit addressing prone restraint, “there is no clearly established … Because the right at issue was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Russell v. Coyle

266 N.J. Super. 651 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1993

Extant caselaw establishes that qualified immunity should shield Trooper Coyle from suit for damages if "a reasonable officer could have believed [Trooper Coyle's] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established … As noted, with respect to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated some clearly established right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed. 2d at 410 .

Montelongo v. City of Modesto

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 15, 2021

Qualified Immunity 22 Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability where a reasonable officer would 23 not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. … established law.”). 24 Officer Wallace is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity 25 because, as established previously, there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Wallace 26

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.”).

El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello

20 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right of which a … To determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity protection from the claims in Count I, we must determine whether the right claimed is a clearly-established one.

Lumry v. State

Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 5, 2018

In claiming qualified immunity, Blecha first contends that the law was not clearly established that he could be personally liable for the FLSA claims; in other words, Blecha asserts that it was not clearly established in … N.Y. 2014) (defendant not entitled to qualified immunity since rules governing its conduct were clearly established, even if the rules about personal liability were not clearly established).

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.