Case law

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.

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

Todd D'Braunstein v. Chp

131 F.4th 764 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 2025

But I depart from the majority in its “clearly established’ prong analysis of qualified immunity. … But for qualified immunity, the Supreme Court “has repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Kisela v.

Talley v. Brentwood Union Free School District

728 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity in General “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

J.H. v. West Virginia Division of Rehabilitation Services

224 W. Va. 147 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2009

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., 11 is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

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.

Livant v. Clifton

334 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 7, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a three step analysis. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999). … Then, [the Court] consider[s] if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Finally, if plaintiff had a clearly established, constitutionally protected right that was violated ...

Wilson v. Maricopa County

484 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 19, 2006

This right is clearly established. … Denial of Qualified Immunity on Summary Judgment.

Kirstin Johnson v. Kierstie Barr

79 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2023

the law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking. … law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking.

Dorwart v. Caraway

312 Mont. 1 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2002

established. … There we held that the law on which Dorwart relied in asserting his federal claim was not clearly established at the time that it was violated.

Fann v. Brailey

841 S.W.2d 833 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 2, 1992

The Harlow court established an objective test to determine whether the state official enjoyed the qualified immunity: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil … have a clearly established right not to have information about her prior involvement with the law revealed to the public?”

Bell v. Luna

856 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 1, 2012

. § 1983 , and that they should in any case be granted qualified immunity, as Mr. Bell’s allegedly infringed rights were not ones clearly established at the time the actions took place. … The Second Circuit has not decided whether an unpublished summary order can serve to "clearly establish” the law for qualified immunity purposes. See David R.

Brian Yates v. Christopher Terry

817 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge … However, a right need not be “recognized by a court in a specific context before such right may be held ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Martin v. Curry

13 Neb. Ct. App. 171 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

, had qualified immunity. … “Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘ “objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” ’ ” Id.

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.

Danny W. TURNER v. Willie MOORE

76 So. 3d 842 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Jul 29, 2011

‘An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … [’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

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.

Beers v. Fouts, et al.

2018 DNH 045 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 7, 2018

In granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, the court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, in that, at the time of the pertinent group strip search, it was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 suits for damages if their actions ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

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.

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