Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 .

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

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

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.

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.

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.”).

Hensley Ex Rel. North Carolina v. Price

876 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

clearly established law. … It contains no argument on the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. It contains no citation to cases actually applying the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

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

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.

Ramirez v. Escajeda

44 F.4th 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Escajeda next argues that, fact disputes aside, he is still entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. We agree.

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).

Kruger v. Grauer

173 Conn. App. 539 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 6, 2017

Indeed, it is well established that conditioning immunity on the exercise of good faith is consistent with qualified immunity, not absolute immu- nity. See, e.g., Villages, LLC v. Longhi, 166 Conn. … and qualified immunity as grounds for summary judgment.

Weise v. Casper

593 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

Because the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … But in qualified immunity cases, except in the most obvious cases, broad, general propositions of law are insufficient to suggest clearly established law. See Brousseau v.

Mohamed Sabra v. Maricopa County Community Coll

44 F.4th 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

of qualified immunity, as there was no case law clearly establishing that his conduct was unconstitutional at the time of the alleged offense. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person