Case law

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

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.

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

Seekamp v. Michaud

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

immunity. … immunity claims.

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

Jacob Pfaller v. Mark Amonette

55 F.4th 436 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 15, 2022

immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established. … was clearly established.

McCowan v. Morales

945 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

A court can consider the two qualified-immunity inquiries—whether the plaintiff has established a statutory or constitutional violation and whether that violation was clearly established—in any order. See Pearson v. … Because this claim adequately alleges a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment violation, the district court correctly denied Moralez qualified immunity from it. 1.

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.

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.

Torner v. Reagen

437 N.W.2d 553 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 22, 1989

Although that holding became binding on the department, it did not amount to a holding that the legal principle was clearly established so as to deprive the commissioner of qualified immunity. … By no stretch could it be said that Bernice’s right to a termination hearing was clearly established. It follows that the commissioner was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of 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.

Vaughan v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services

920 So. 2d 650 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 21, 2005

The essential qualified immunity issue in this appeal is whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that a warrant was required for the search of Vaughan’s property and whether, by entering his yard … inspector to render the law, establishing that a warrant was needed, not yet clearly established.

Lewis Stewart v. Romeo Aranas

32 F.4th 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2022

The panel determined that only examination of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis was necessary—whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation—because doing so would not hamper the … ” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Meyers v. Baltimore County

981 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 2013

Further, defendants maintained that, “ ‘[i]f the court finds that Officer Mee violated the Fourth Amendment then he is still entitled to qualified immunity because such an interpretation of the law was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity extends to protect officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’ ” Williams v.

Lintz v. Skipski

815 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 23, 1993

They argue that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations and also ask for reconsideration of their conspiracy claim. … Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability, provided their conduct “does not vio-' late clearly established statutory or

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