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.

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

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.

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 .

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

Sok Kong v. City of Burnsville

960 F.3d 985 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2020

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts show a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. See Pearson v. … Because a reasonable jury could decide the officers violated this clearly established right when they shot Kong, I would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

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.

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.”

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.

Gloria Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital Dist

891 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2018

The district court held those allegations cannot overcome the Doctors’ and Nurses’ qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly-established. We agree and affirm on that ground. … Granting of qualified immunity on the “clearly-established” prong is not the same as holding that no constitutional violation occurred. That would conflate the two prongs of qualified immunity.

Bailey v. Pataki

722 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 2010

If either prong is missing, qualified immunity is warranted; however, the burden is on defendants to establish qualified immunity. … that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

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. .

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

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."

Naumovski v. Norris

934 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to immunity from suit whenever (1) his conduct “did not violate clearly established law,” or (2) “it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that … Because Naumovski has failed to produce evidence that could establish that Defendants themselves clearly violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

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.

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

134 F.4th 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2025

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (qualified immunity applies unless officials “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”). … The qualified immunity inquiry asks whether an officer “violate[d] clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Melene James v. City of Boise

158 Idaho 713 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 21, 2015

The Court explained why the “clearly established law” could not be so general that it would eliminate the rule of qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, the court of appeals held that there was no clearly established law that the officer’s “use of a police dog to search and bite was unconstitutional.” Id. at 1092 .