Case law

Rachel v. City of Mobile

112 F. Supp. 3d 1263 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Moreover, “[t]he law cannot be .established by dieta[, which] is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Santamorena v.

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

City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara

911 S.W.2d 901 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Dec 13, 1995

The Court’s definition of good faith is “derived substantially” from the federal qualified immunity law in “section 1983 claims”: Although the cases sometimes refer to the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity, the … “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the official at the time the conduct occurred.”

Laguerre v. Nevada System of Higher Education

837 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. Nevada · Aug 5, 2011

This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … With respect to a qualified immunity claim, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the right claimed was clearly established. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1989).

Gausvik v. Abbey

126 Wash. App. 868 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 25, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Sheldon v. City of Ambler

178 P.3d 459 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2008

Using the Saucier analysis, the superior court held that Jones and the City of Ambler were protected by qualified immunity because “[t]here was no clearly established law ... that would have given a reasonable officer notice … "If the law d[oes] not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 12 .

Roy Lee Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

117 F.4th 503 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2024

But that rule was newly articulated, and this Court held that qualified immunity applied because that articulation of the right was not clearly established. Id. at 553. … Thus, a letter from a federal agency cannot satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard for qualified immunity.

Thacker v. City of Hyattsville

135 Md. App. 268 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2000

immunity under federal law, and that, as a matter of law, such findings establish lack of malice and qualified immunity under section 5-507. … Because Judge Williams clearly applied the objective federal standard for qualified immunity, we hold that his decision that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from section 1983 liability did not collaterally

Pratt v. Ottum

2000 Me. 203 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 2000

Because their actions violated plaintiffs clearly established rights, defendants are not entitled to a qualified immunity as a matter of law.” II. … Because their actions violated [Pratt’s] clearly established rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.”

Kersavage v. University of Tennessee

731 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 5, 1989

Moreover, the Court does not believe that qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants as a matter of law because the law of patent infringement is clearly established, relegating the application of such immunity … Reconsideration of Qualified Immunity The two individual defendants reassert their defense of qualified immunity, contending that under applicable precedent they could not have known that their conduct violated established

Kimberlin v. Quinlan

199 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 1999

The judgment on the clearly established law, however, is not fully dispositive of the issues raised by appellants’ renewed motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … was clearly established.”

Toney (ID 71755) v. Harrod

District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 7, 2021

Clearly Established Right In the alternative, the Court concludes that Quidichay is entitled to qualified immunity because Toney cannot establish the second prong of the qualified … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, Sullivan is entitled to immunity unless his alleged actions violated a clearly established right

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

895 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even if the officers had used unreasonable force, the court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the officers did not violate a clearly established right. Id. at 1016-22 . … "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." Kisela v.

Turner v. Giles

264 Ga. 812 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Dec 5, 1994

One of the grounds of appellants’ unsuccessful motion to dismiss was their claim of qualified immunity to appellee’s § 1983 action. … Indeed, the basic issue is substantially identical: A § 1983 complaint alleges that the defendant violated federal law, whereas the defendant’s claim of qualified immunity asserts that clearly established federal law was

Estate of Christopher J. Davis v. Juan Ortiz

987 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2021

Ortiz has appealed from the denial of qualified immunity. … , and (2) that the unlaw- fulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time the officer acted.

Riddle v. City of Ottawa

12 Kan. App. 2d 714 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · May 20, 1988

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … If he did so act, he is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Christopher Stoner v. Eugene Watlingten

735 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 7, 2013

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 … Under these principles, we frame the clearly-established question as whether a reasonable officer would have known that he violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law by arresting Stoner for violating Ark.

Byrd v. Haas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 23, 2020

Qualified Immunity for RLUIPA Claims Qualified immunity is unavailable for the RLUIPA claims in this case. … And qualified immunity only applies to claims for money damages, not claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. See Flagner v.

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

We cannot conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. Atkinson has fulfilled Sauciers first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Milhouse clearly established that such retaliatory actions, if proven, are not legal. Thus, Saucier’s second prong is satisfied and appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Tayvin Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa

134 F.4th 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 17, 2025

“An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s alleged wrongdoing.” … Independent of federal qualified immunity, Iowa officers enjoy statutory immunity where “[t]he right . . . secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation