Case law

Morgan v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 5, 2022

Judicial Immunity “Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges for liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial … entitled to qualified immunity).

Oliver v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

350 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Qualified immunity shields *352 government officials from liability for civil damages as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Because the plaintiff's right not to *353 be listed in the MSOR was not clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred, qualified immunity insulates the individual defendants in this case from liability under

Mann Ex Rel. Estate of Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

872 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2017

In addressing the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, we must define the right allegedly violated at the appropriate level of specificity. Sharp v. … We granted qualified immunity to the gym teacher, concluding that a child did not have a clearly established right to dry-drowning intervention protocols while participating in gym class. Id. at 641.

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.

McCoy v. Meyers

887 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 10, 2018

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (quotations omitted). … McCoy’s clearly established right to be free from the continued use of force after he was effectively subdued. We address both steps of the qualified immunity analysis. a.

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?

Randall v. Scott

610 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

Alternatively, even if the allegations in the complaint were sufficent to establish a First Amendment violation, the court concluded that Scott was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established … claim for violation of his First Amendment rights; and (3) Scott is entitled to qualified immunity because Randall’s constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of Scott’s alleged misconduct

Hunter v. Town of Edwards

871 F. Supp. 2d 558 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · May 16, 2012

were clearly established at the time it was taken.”) … unreasonable in the light of that then clearly established law.”

Scott Rabin v. Michael Flynn

725 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2013

We find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, because even if the officers had known what that type of license was, it still would have been reasonable under clearly established … “[A] court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law without first resolving whether the purported right exists.”

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.

Neal W. Roland v. Perry Johnson, Thomas Phillips, Dale Foltz, Bernie Toland

933 F.2d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1991

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1988), the Supreme Court refined the qualified immunity test developed in Harlow. … Accordingly, defendants' claim of qualified immunity is without merit. 9 The defendants next assert the district court erred in entering judgment in Roland's favor.

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

96 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, C.D. California · May 29, 2014

immunity to officers who used Tasers in which courts held that Taser usage was not “clearly established.” … These theories arose from clearly established constitutional violations which, if proven, would disqualify a defendant from qualified immunity protections. Hope v.

Eng v. Cooley

552 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2009

If a plaintiffs constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of the violation, then qualified immunity should be granted. 2. Whether Eng’s Rights Were Clearly Established a. … established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

Ryan Leaver v. Gary Shortess

844 F.3d 665 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2016

And even if he was aware of it, qualified immunity applies. It’s not clear that the infor- mation would have negated probable cause. I. … Or at least qualified immunity applies. It would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that these contract provisions defeat probable cause.

Vette v. Sanders

989 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 5, 2021

Vette’s clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment.6 It accordingly held Sergeant Sanders was not entitled to qualified immunity. Sergeant Sanders timely appealed. Although Mr. … Legal Standards and Standard of Review “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Joseph C. Avakoff, Appellant-Applicant v. Southern Pacific Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Appellees-Opposers

765 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Jun 19, 1985

Without more, this type of shipment is clearly not activity amounting to a sale or transportation of the goods in commerce and does not constitute a bona fide shipment sufficient to lay a foundation for federal registration … Clearly, the shipment by applicant’s manufacturer to the applicant was not use of the mark by applicant in commerce. Conclusion The order of the board granting Southern Pacific’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed.

Rosen v. City of New York

667 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 28, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under federal claims insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity when “(1) Plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a federal right; (2) the right alleged was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; or (3) the

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch v. Poyner

64 S.W.3d 182 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jan 10, 2002

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Cantrell v. DeKalb County

78 S.W.3d 902 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 3, 2001

The Qualified Immunity Defense The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the law enforcement officials have presented undisputed facts demonstrating that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Cantrell’s clearly established rights. ■ 1. Mr. Cantrell’s Free Exercise Rights Mr. Cantrell, like all persons, possesses certain clearly established rights with regard to the practice of his religion.

Sabir v. District of Columbia

755 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

Absent violation of “a clearly established right,”a police officer will not be subject to § 1983 liability. Id. at 1015. As the D.C. Circuit articulated the standard in Wardlaw v. … Generally, the review of a deniál of qualified immunity is a question of law — “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Mitchell v.