Case law

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.

Jonathan Capp v. County of San Diego

940 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2019

clearly established. … Clearly Established Having determined that Plaintiffs plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim, we now move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether “the right at issue was ‘clearly

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

Mawson v. Pittston Police Department

145 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2015

The defendant objects to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established. (Doc. 93, p. 13). … Again, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the court must determine whether the facts — taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — establish a violation of clearly established law and that a reasonable

Kostic v. Texas A & M University at Commerce

11 F. Supp. 3d 699 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2014

Qualified Immunity “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 … Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was “objectively reasonable in light of ‘clearly established

Randall Ehlers v. Scott Dirkes

846 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2017

statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … A reasonable officer would not have understood the action in question to constitute excessive force.4 Thus, the law was not clearly established, and Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity. 4 Ehlers relies

Patrick Russell v. Jocelyn Lumitap

31 F.4th 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 13, 2022

, but instead argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Russell’s clearly established constitutional rights on the record taken in the light most favorable to Russell. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established at the time that he acted,40 and the law at the time that the defendants acted was different than it is now.

Jimerson v. Lewis

94 F.4th 423 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 2024

Indeed, it is useful to divide this second component of qualified immunity into two questions: “whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so … established law for qualified immunity analysis.”

Mitchell v. Township of Willingboro Municipality Government

913 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2012

The Third Circuit has clearly held that “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v. … Defendant Perez does not argue that Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights in this case were not clearly established. Consequently, the Plaintiffs complaint satisfies the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

McCoy v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2021

See Mot. at 17–18. 1 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability 2 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional … actions, 18 as clearly established law).

Belizaire v. City of Miami

944 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 16, 2013

Belizaire has failed to satisfy her burden of alleging the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. First, Ms. … Belizaire fails to allege the violation of a clearly established right, Expósito is entitled to qualified immunity. See Bailey v.

Kauch v. Department for Children, Youth & Their Families

321 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 14, 2003

A three-part test is used to determine if an official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, a court considers whether "the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." … Second, we determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Connell v. Signoracci

153 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1998

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v. … Qualified immunity shields officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Christopher Sandknop v. Brian O'Connell

932 F.3d 739 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2019

Dismissing a case on a 12(b)(6) motion for reasons of qualified immunity is appropriate when the “immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Ulrich v. … An official is entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “unless the evidence establishes (1) that a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at

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

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.

Breidenbach v. Bolish

126 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 10, 1997

Agent Gesi moved to dismiss the action on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that Agent Gesi violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. See Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. 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.

Dennis v. City of Phila.

379 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2019

Borough of Nesquehoning , 905 F.3d 711 , 719 (3d Cir. 2018) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry was whether the right at issue in that case was clearly established at the time the alleged conduct occurred). … They argue that because it was not clearly established in 1992 that police officers had any Brady obligations, the Defendant detectives are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.