Case law

Archuleta v. LaCuesta

128 N.M. 13 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1999

Such a person is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, however, if his or her action was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. See Yount v. … reasonably believed that the action was lawful in light of clearly established constitutional principles, see Anderson v.

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.”

Felicia Dean v. Stephen McKinney

976 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 2, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity—controversial, contested, and binding—is a familiar rule. 1 The doctrine shields the officer from suit unless his conduct violated “clearly established … But in doing so, the Court recognized that there was no clearly established law at the time of the crash in 2014 and granted qualified immunity. Id.

SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2023

Finally, the individual capacity claims fail on qualified immunity grounds because the Individual Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”)

J.P. v. D.P.

260 So. 3d 862 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Mar 30, 2018

App. 2008) ("Although these incidents were somewhat remote in time, they still evidence the character of the paternal grandmother and clearly and convincingly prove that she was not fit and qualified to receive and care for … App. 2012) (" ' "We should not equate the filing of 'court papers' and the taking of legal positions with the establishment of human relationships." ' [ Ex parte J.W.B. , 933 So.2d 1081 , 1092 (Ala. 2005) ](quoting K.W.J.

Ramirez v. Killian

113 F.4th 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2024

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity as a defense, the plaintiff “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. … light of “clearly established law.”

Maldonado v. Fontanes

568 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 4, 2009

It is clear from the Supreme Court's description of the second, "clearly established" step of the qualified immunity analysis that the second step, in turn, has two aspects. … These are principles of law, and the law was sufficiently recognized by courts to be clearly established. See Wilson v.

Anderson v. Vasquez

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 2019

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both that the defendant violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established in light of the circumstances that occurred … “The burden of showing that an officer violated clearly established law falls on the plaintiff, and a plaintiff’s citation of general rules or abstract rights is insufficient to strip a 1983 defendant of his qualified immunity

Eric Thurairajah v. Bill Hollenbeck

925 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 3, 2019

The district court denied qualified immunity on both claims after concluding Trooper Cross’s arrest violated Thurairajah’s clearly established constitutional rights. II. … Qualified immunity will shield a state actor, like Trooper Cross, from legal liability unless: (1) he violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer

Rodriguez v. Tisch

688 F. Supp. 1530 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 19, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Moody v. City of Key West

805 So. 2d 1018 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 26, 2001

In order for the plaintiffs to overcome the claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the defendant officers violated clearly established law of *1022 which a reasonable person would have known. … As the case law has explained: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it

The West Virginia State Police, Department of Military Affairs v. J.H., a Minor, by and through His Parent and Next Friend, L.D.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2021

it violated a clearly established law or right in performing its discretionary functions. … Next, we must move forward in the qualified immunity analysis and determine whether J.H. has alleged that the acts of the Trooper Defendants were in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

363 Ill. App. 3d 869 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a “clearly established” constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: “ ‘[Cjlearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that … Because “it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims” (Ruffino v.

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

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee

768 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2014

An assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome if the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, the seizure violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right, and so Walsh is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. III.

Navarro v. Block

250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights.... … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a § 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is “clearly established” is relevant only to qualified immunity.

Rowe v. Carson

911 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 12, 1996

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, Mahers v. … Furthermore, I find that even if the plaintiffs right was clearly established, under the third step of the qualified immunity enquiry a reasonable probation officer would not have understood that his actions violated that

Dokman v. County of Hennepin

637 N.W.2d 286 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 18, 2001

A governmental official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would … Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have believed

Tammy D. Scarbrough, Carol C. Davis v. Bryant Myles, Jr., Chuck Hall

245 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2001

Because Hall had arguable probable cause to arrest Scarbrough and Davis, he violated no clearly established law and is entitled to qualified immunity. 9 *1304 The district judge denied immunity to Myles, who was not involved … In addressing discretionary-function immunity and qualified immunity, our court has stated that "[ujnder both Alabama law and federal law, the core issue is whether a defendant violated clearly established law.”