Case law

Darnell Hines v. Ashrafe Youseff

914 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

So for the officials here to lose qualified immunity, it would have to have been clearly established that treating people of all races the same violated the Equal Protection Clause. … So we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The rights that the inmates claim were not clearly established when the officials acted. Granting leave to amend would be futile.

Bryant v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

781 F.3d 764 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 25, 2015

A defense of qualified immunity is analyzed in two parts. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Id. (citation omitted). … She has thus failed to show that the reassignment violated a clearly established right and Littleton is entitled to qualified immunity on this interference claim. 8  Case

Lee Rice, II v. Dale Morehouse

989 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 8, 2021

CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW The district court held that even if Morehouse and Shaffer used excessive force, they were entitled to qualified immunity. … MOREHOUSE denying the officer qualified immunity, we said that the “right to be free of excessive force was clearly established” at the time of Emmons’s arrest in 2013. Emmons v. City of Escondido, 716 F.

Estate of Seth Michael Zakora v. Troy Chrisman

44 F.4th 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Two factors lead us away, however, from deciding this case under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity for the first time on appeal. … No clearly established constitutional right. What ought to create a stop sign at step one of qualified immunity generates a grinding halt at step two.

Jennifer L. Burbridge v. Marcus Biggins

2 F.4th 774 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Alternatively, Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in this circuit whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applied to bar § 1983 conspiracy claims.

Arnzen v. State

123 Idaho 899 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 13, 1993

Thus, in order to determine whether Richardson, in his individual capacity, was entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask: 1. Was there a clearly established law; 2. … This prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a compound question: (1) did Arnzen have a clearly established right; and (2) did Richardson’s conduct violate it?

Burke v. Glanz

292 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 9, 2017

With respect to the second component of the qualified immunity analysis, to show clearly established law, a plaintiff must generally identify a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion which existed at the time of the alleged … Glanz also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Haskell Greer v. City of Highland Park, Mich.

884 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2018

Page 2 qualified immunity. … DISCUSSION 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

Ada Electric Cars, LLC v. Kemp

294 P.3d 448 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2012

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: 1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and 2) that the right was "clearly established … advertising that its vehicles qualified. %8 Appellant has failed to demonstrate Appellees violated its clearly established right to freedom of speech in a manner that would enable Appellant to defeat Appel-lees' qualified

Parent v. Kan. City Pub. Sch.

296 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 31, 2017

Since qualified immunity requires an answer to both questions and this Court cannot answer whether there is a constitutional violation, this Court need not decide at this time whether the right was clearly established. … not clearly established.

Tolliver v. Jordan

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 1, 2021

Accordingly, on the facts before it, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Goord, 312 F. … Supp. 2d 537, 548-49 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (defendants’ alleged improperly-motivated prison transfers in retaliation for inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights violated clearly established law, making qualified immunity

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

WRIGHT CROFT v. DONEGAL TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2021

Accordingly, government officials sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for alleged violations of a plaintiff’s civil rights “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, courts analyze “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Tuchman v. State

89 Conn. App. 745 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 24, 2005

The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action on the basis of the doctrines of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity and statutory immunity. … “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 rights of which

Preslie Hardwick v. Marcia Vreeken

844 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 2017

The panel held that defendants’ case for qualified immunity was not supported by the law or the record. … “Clearly Established” An official “cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in [his or her] shoes would have understood

Traylor v. Gerratana

148 Conn. App. 605 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 11, 2014

‘‘Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … Novarro, 624 F.3d 522, 530 (2d Cir. 2010); then qualified immunity applies.

Hughes v. Kisela

862 F.3d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2016

“In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established *783 at the time of the … [genuine factual] issues is crucial to a proper determination of the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity,” and remanded the question whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct,

Bledsoe v. Jefferson County

275 F. Supp. 3d 1240 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 4, 2017

Unless the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity applies. Id. … Morgan’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity shields him from suit. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Mr.

Brandon Pegg v. Grant Herrnberger

845 F.3d 112 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 4, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could … Under West Virginia law, a police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when his or her conduct results in a clearly established constitutional or statutory violation