Case law

Estate of Clemente Najera Aguirre v. County of Riverside

131 F.4th 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 2025

We have held “that the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a matter of law to be decided by a judge.” Reese v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Morales v. … Clearly Established Law Assessing qualified immunity after a jury verdict turns on the second, “clearly established” prong, which requires deference to the jury’s view of the facts. See A.D., 712 F.3d at 456.

Alvarez v. Worcester

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2020

Qualified Immunity The Court declines to dismiss Counts II or V on qualified immunity grounds.8 These claims relate to the fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution based on this evidence … Condon, 372 F.3d at 48, Defendants have not shown entitlement to qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation.

Harmon v. Dall. Cnty.

294 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 20, 2018

In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts...to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts … to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v.

Basinski v. City of New York

192 F. Supp. 3d 360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 14, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In addition, in order to be “clearly established” for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis, “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Wood v. City of Alamogordo

8 N.M. Ct. App. 43 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2015

Qualified Immunity, Clearly Established Law, and Trujillo 2 {7} We begin by addressing Wood’s argument that the district court erred in 3 concluding he failed to establish that Trujillo violated clearly established … New Mexico Board of Examiners of Optometry to argue 10 that Trujillo violated clearly established law and is therefore not entitled to qualified 11 immunity. 1979-NMSC-005, 92 N.M. 414, 589 P.2d 198.

B.R. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Children and Families, and Child Protective Services

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Feb 8, 2024

is necessary to defeat the defense of qualified immunity. … Code § 49-6A-9, which would overcome qualified immunity.

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

Hill v. D.J. Taylor

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 3, 2023

Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Qualified immunity is available to protect the Officers from liability unless it can be shown by Plaintiff that the Officers violated a clearly established right, based on closely analogous cases illustrating that the Officers

July v. Penzone

District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 5, 2021

complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th 23 Cir. 2009) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity because “[violations of] state 24 departmental regulations do not establish a federal constitutional violation”). 25

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

905 F.3d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2018

of the unlawfulness of his or her conduct. 16 The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time. 17 12 136 S. … established law. 21 We will not revisit the first part of the qualified immunity inquiry in connection with any of the Coles’ claims, nor the question of clearly established law as regards the Coles’ Fourteenth Amendment

Florine Ching v. Ofc. Neal Walsh

73 F.4th 617 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 13, 2023

In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established. Manning v. … Because, after Jordan posed a threat to Walsh, it was not clearly established that Walsh’s continuous shooting, which lasted less than two seconds, violated a constitutional right, Walsh is entitled to qualified immunity.

Cheri Marie Hanson v. Daniel Best

915 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2019

We have jurisdiction to the extent that we may resolve “abstract questions of law related to the qualified- immunity determination—typically, whether the allegedly infringed federal right was clearly established.” … Therefore, the right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Hanson’s excessive force claim.

Swedlund v. Foster

657 N.W.2d 39 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2003

Otherwise, the protection of qualified immunity is effectively lost if there must be a trial to establish that no trial is necessary. Saucier v. … The test articulated by this Court in Hart is similar: “To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable

Jackson v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Corrs.

785 So. 2d 803 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 15, 2001

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. … If the court determines that the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, the Harlow analysis requires the public official claiming immunity to show that, because of extraordinary circumstances, "he neither

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v. Richard P. Seiter

858 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1988

The court stated that this decision added to the evidence that clearly established the protected right in this case. Until recently, the controlling Supreme Court case on qualified immunity, Wood v. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Hazley v. Roy

378 F. Supp. 3d 751 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 26, 2019

"Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his [or her] individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of 'clearly established statutory or … C Once the right has been defined at the appropriate level of specificity, the next inquiry is whether that right was clearly established. Defendants challenge this component of qualified immunity, as well.

Cunningham v. Kramer

178 F. Supp. 3d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … O’Neill held that,'under circumstances substantially identical to those asserted here, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that law was not “clearly established” that inmates have a constitution right

Hunter v. Town of Edwards

871 F. Supp. 2d 558 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · May 16, 2012

were clearly established at the time it was taken.”) … unreasonable in the light of that then clearly established law.”

Richmond Lapolla v. County of Union

449 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2017

The qualified immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … And, as we observed, "[q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id. at 28 (alteration in original).

(PC) Calloway v. Nieves

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 21, 2022

Lastly, defendants contend that they are entitled to 14 qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established federal law. … Qualified Immunity 22 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 23 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights