Case law

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).

Shane v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 16, 2023

If a right is not clearly established, the defendant is 8 entitled to qualified immunity. Lawrence v. U.S., 340 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2003). … Cty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that qualified 4 immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White, 580 U.S. 5 at 79 (noting that clearly established

A.N. v. Alamogordo Police Department

928 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2019

P. 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. … In other words, “[g]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.”

Forney v. Purvis

190 Ga. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 13, 1989

“[T]he appealable issue [on a claim for qualified immunity] is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the' plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … If, as plaintiff alleges, defendants denied her equal protection of the law because of her union membership, then their conduct was violative of clearly established law and would not be protected by qualified immunity from

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

128 Ohio St. 3d 221 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2010

Chapter 2744 or another provision of the law, including federal qualified immunity. … immunity if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Jennings v. Hinkle

115 N.M. 387 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1993

We hold that the officers did not violate clearly established law and, thus, had qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability. Accordingly, we affirm. … They retain the shield of qualified immunity as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Arcoren v. Peters

627 F. Supp. 1513 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 13, 1986

The qualified immunity defense applies equally to RzVews-styled constitutional tort actions and cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Butz, 438 U.S. at 500-01 , 98 S.Ct. at 2907-08 . Clearly Established Rights. … Having violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants must be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. 1 .

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.

Davis v. Town of Southern Pines

116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Booth v. City of Dallas

312 F.R.D. 427 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … That is, even if a government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See Davis v.

Ruffins v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

701 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

“clearly established federal law” for the purposes of qualified immunity. … At the time the Second Circuit had Earley before it for consideration, the relevant law may have been clearly established for the purposes of AEDPA and not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Jerry Nelson v. Keyvon Sellers

89 F.4th 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2024

clearly established law.” … Nelson’s Right Was Clearly Established. All that remains is “the clearly established prong of the qual- ified immunity inquiry.” Helm v.

Harvey v. Nichols

260 Ga. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 27, 2003

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … Qualified immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.

Carradine v. State

494 N.W.2d 77 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 29, 1992

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Carradine failed to show the search of his person was conducted with excessive force or violated any clearly established law.

Hassell v. Fischer

96 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, therefore, turns on whether and when the rights that Hassell invokes were “clearly established.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Robert Reese, Jr. v. County of Sacramento

888 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 23, 2018

Rose’s entitlement to qualified immunity therefore turns on whether Reese’s right was clearly established at the time of the incident in 2011. … Ct. at 310 (quotation marks omitted).1 Absent a showing by Reese that the right was clearly established at the time, Rose is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Shelly Ioane v. Jean Noll

903 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2018

Clearly Established The second part of the qualified immunity test requires us to determine whether, at the time of Agent Noll’s actions in June 2006, the law was clearly established. … But the existence of a constitutional violation alone is insufficient to deny qualified immunity—we must find that the right at issue was “clearly established.”

McMullen v. Starkville Oktibbeha Consolidated School District

200 F. Supp. 3d 649 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 29, 2016

To raise qualified immunity, “[a]n officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly … A civil rights “plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Kevin M. Leckelt v. Board of Commissioners of Hospital District No. 1

909 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 1990

Thus, the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Leekelt failed to establish that he was discriminated against solely because of a perception that he was infected with HIV. … We are unable to conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that Leckelt did not establish pretext. C.