Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.’”

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

Bryant v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

781 F.3d 764 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 25, 2015

A defense of qualified immunity is analyzed in two parts. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Id. (citation omitted). … She has thus failed to show that the reassignment violated a clearly established right and Littleton is entitled to qualified immunity on this interference claim. 8  Case

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?

Denise Coley v. Lucas County, Ohio

799 F.3d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Gray’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law thus also fails. 2. … At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, those rights were clearly established.

Lamb v. Holmes

162 S.W.3d 902 · Kentucky Supreme Court · May 19, 2005

establish searches conducted in either described manner would be unreasonable, and therefore the teachers/administrators are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state and local officials who carry out executive and administrative functions from personal liability so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Jackie L. Brown, II v. City of Montgomery

233 W. Va. 119 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2014

Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., 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. … Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., 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

Roger Miller Music, Inc., and Mary A. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Sony/atv Publishing, Llc, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

477 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2007

Rather, a motion under Rule 59(e) “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d at 16 ; FDIC v. … Winchester-Conant Prop., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir.2003) (“Uses of the copyrighted work that stay within the scope of a nonexclusive license are immunized from infringement suits.”).

Haskell Greer v. City of Highland Park, Mich.

884 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2018

Page 2 qualified immunity. … DISCUSSION Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Hughes v. Kisela

862 F.3d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2016

“In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established *783 at the time of the … [genuine factual] issues is crucial to a proper determination of the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity,” and remanded the question whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct,

Rogers v. Jarrett

63 F.4th 971 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2023

conduct is clearly established.”22 It just isn’t enough to identify a right as “a broad general proposition.”23 The district court did not address qualified immunity’s second step. … Griffin27 supports that Jarrett and Bridges violated clearly established law.

Janaszak v. State

173 Wash. App. 703 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

law. 37 A claim of qualified immunity to a § 1983 action presents two issues: (1) do the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” at the time of the defendant … ’s alleged misconduct. 38 Qualified immunity applies unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right. 39 Both issues present “ ‘essentially legal question [s]’ ” for the court to decide. 40 The court may

See v. City of Elyria

502 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2007

by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity. … See has met his burden of establishing that Med-ders is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Sharon Powell v. Jennifer Snook

25 F.4th 912 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2022

The qualified immunity issue before us is the familiar one of whether clearly established law put Snook on notice that firing the shots he did violated David Powell’s constitutional rights. … For qualified immun- ity to apply, an officer “must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.” Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1280 (11th Cir. 2013).

Ricciuti v. Gyzenis

834 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 24, 2016

The individual defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not prohibited by clearly established law at the time of Ricciuti’s termination. … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010), that “even 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