Case law

Wilkins v. City of Oakland

350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where ‘clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers’ actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.

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

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

Weinstein v. City of North Bay Village

977 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2013

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct ‘violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … The Alleged Constitutional Violations Were Clearly Established For Weinstein to avoid qualified immunity, he must allege that Schwartz violated a clearly established law. See Keating, 598 F.3d at 762 .

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.

Harris v. Parrish

552 S.W.3d 475 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2018

right is clearly established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official should have known that the conduct violated such established rights. … We hold that Parrish's constitutional rights were clearly established prior to Harris's actions in question. In Shannon 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.

Herman Louis Dimartini v. Lynn Jay Ferrin, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation

889 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 1989

immunity, arguing that his actions, even as alleged, did not violate clearly established fifth amendment rights. … Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity, from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

Strickland v. City of Crenshaw

114 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 20, 2015

in qualified immunity cases. … Thus, plaintiffs are clearly unable to survive a qualified immunity defense with regard to any property damage claims. .

Harris v. City of New York

222 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 2, 2016

Qualified immunity exists to protect government employees from civil liability where performance of their discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Probable cause is no defense to such a claim, Zahrey, 221 F.3d at 355 , and qualified immunity is unavailable where “the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent

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.

Armstrong v. City Of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

Qualified Immunity Framework 8 Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from the necessity of defending against tort liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … right was clearly established."

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.