Case law

United States v. May

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2005

The district court’s factual findings are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous, but its “legal conclusions as to the existence of probable cause are reviewed de novo.” United States v. … Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 480 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Sixth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable.

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.”

Frank Staples v. NH State Prison, Warden, et al.

2017 DNH 046 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 17, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from trial and monetary liability unless the pleaded facts establish ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly … Defendants respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim both because Staples does not have a clearly established constitutionally protected liberty interest in any particular housing assignment and

Shaniz West v. City of Caldwell

931 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

Principles Governing Qualified Immunity Police officers have qualified immunity for their official conduct unless (1) they violate a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established … established case law in qualified immunity cases.

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.

Hill v. Quigley

336 F. Supp. 3d 283 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 2018

Plaintiff also argues that references to "immunity" within the charge improperly invited the jury to speculate on the question of qualified immunity. The word "immunity" appeared twice in my charge. … The reference to "immunity" did not muddle the applicable legal standards. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court, see Hunter v.

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.

Rochelle Scott v. Kyle Smith

109 F.4th 1215 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2024

However, because that right was not clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the incident, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity for Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim.

Ramona Hinojosa v. Brad Livingston

807 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2015

If true, this would defeat a qualified immunity defense, because it would establish that Defendants subjected Hinojosa to extreme temperatures without adequate remedial measures, in violation of our circuit’s clearly established … light of clearly established law.

Karen Heeter v. Kenneth Bowers

99 F.4th 900 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2024

Clearly Established Law on Excessive Force The next step of the qualified immunity analysis asks us to determine whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. … This standard overlaps with our qualified immunity analysis because officers act in a “wanton or reckless” manner when they violate an individual’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Wetherbe v. Texas Tech University

138 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2025

is qualified immunity. … However, “the ‘clearly established’ qualified immunity standard . . . . does not require that causation be clearly established,” 40 so we need not address element four.

Campbell v. Anderson

156 N.C. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, then determining … Plaintiff sufficiently identified specific rights clearly established at the time of the violation and has met the first two prongs. The third prong of the test may require a factual analysis. See Roberts v.

Petcu v. State

86 P.3d 1234 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu's clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 65-66 , 830 P.2d 318 .

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

Clark v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 4, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability for damages when their conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 8 Plaintiffs also move to exclude … Mills, 869 F.3d at 486 (noting the right to be clearly established as of 1992); Moldowan, 578 F.3d at 382 (recognizing that the right was clearly established in 1990); cf.

Henson v. Foster

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 10, 2023

Qualified immunity “shields [a] government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … of whether the detainees rights were clearly established). 2.

Dennis v. City of Phila.

379 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2019

Borough of Nesquehoning , 905 F.3d 711 , 719 (3d Cir. 2018) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry was whether the right at issue in that case was clearly established at the time the alleged conduct occurred). … They argue that because it was not clearly established in 1992 that police officers had any Brady obligations, the Defendant detectives are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Randall Ehlers v. Scott Dirkes

846 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2017

statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … A reasonable officer would not have understood the action in question to constitute excessive force.4 Thus, the law was not clearly established, and Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity. 4 Ehlers relies

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.

Brian Pearson v. Tyler Eldridge

2022 DNH 039 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2022

Eldridge has moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. Because Eldridge has not established that qualified immunity shields him from suit, I deny the motion. I. … right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”