Case law

Novitsky v. City of Aurora

491 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2007

Novitsky’s first claim, the district court concluded the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, on June 9, 2001, they did not violate clearly established law by removing M r. … W e therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether Officer W ortham violated clearly established law. 2.

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

John Mclaughlin v. Alex Watson

271 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 20, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732 (1982) (citations omitted)). 21 In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a "clearly established" right. … In the Motion to Dismiss, Stiles clearly asserted a "qualified immunity" defense. App. at 258.

Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan.

80 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 1999

“If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.” Mick v. … In arguing against qualified immunity, plaintiffs do not cite a single case which establishes that defendants’ conduct violated clearly established procedural due process rights.

Foster v. Runnels

554 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

The District Court however found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right in question was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right The District Court found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the Eighth Amendment right to adequate food was not clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable corrections

Camden v. Hilton

360 S.C. 164 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 7, 2004

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 896 (5th Cir.1982) (“Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an officials conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors

Jiang v. Porter

156 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Dec 28, 2015

“[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 person would have … Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995) (stating that qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint”).

Mattos v. Agarano

661 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2011

We now hold that, although Plaintiffs in both cases have alleged constitutional violations, the officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims because the law was not clearly established … Defendant Officers Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law When They Tased Mattos We next turn to whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the force they used against Jayzel in August 2006.

Long v. Norris

929 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 1991

Thus, we venture once more into the labyrinth of deciding what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. In Mitchell v. … established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.

Vest v. Easley

145 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

They may, however, defend by raising the defense of qualified immunity. Id. … Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Tanvir v. Tanzin

120 F.4th 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 29, 2024

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from damages unless a reasonable person in her position would have understood that her conduct fell within the scope of a clearly established prohibition. … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Cortezz Dickerson v. William Bower

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 21, 2025

DISPOSITIVE ORDER FINDING QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY AND THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW Appellees asserted in their answer to the complaint the affirmative defense of qualified official immunity … Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from the torts Appellants alleged against them.

Gardner v. Rogers

224 Ga. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 20, 1996

“[T]he test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … On a motion for summary judgment, if the applicable law was clearly established at the time the defendant acted, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law

International Action Center v. United States

365 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 2004

eliminated, so long as the plaintiff has alleged (with or without evidence to back it up) violation of one ‘clearly established’ right.” … Merits 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 person would

Everson v. Leis

556 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

Toth v. Bethel Township

268 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … Even where a plaintiff has shown the violation of constitutional rights, an individual defendant will still enjoy qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established at the time- of -the violation.

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.

Maria Ventura v. Jennifer Rutledge

978 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an [officer’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … The Supreme Court also found that even though the decedent appeared calm and the other woman present did not feel endangered, the shooting officer did not violate clearly established law and was therefore entitled to qualified

Noonan v. Kane

305 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

It determined that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity since he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 572 . … established for the purpose of qualified immunity.

Michele Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., Ohio

915 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “To qualify as clearly established, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Kindl v.