Case law

Patrick A. Dadd v. Anoka County

827 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2016

Anoka also rests its claim for qualified immunity on the argument that Dadd’s right to treatment in this particular situation was not clearly established, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Even if a complaint fairly alleges a violation of a constitutional right, an official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Neil Morgan v. Fairfield Cty., Ohio

903 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The district court was correct to conclude that the law was not clearly established, so that the claims against the individual officers failed on qualified immunity grounds. … Specifically, the court held, qualified immunity was appropriate because even if intruding onto the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established that such an action was a violation at the time of

Cassady v. Yellowstone County Montana Sheriff Department

333 Mont. 371 · Montana Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2006

We now turn to the issue of whether the Officers’ failure to knock and announce was reasonable for purposes of determining qualified immunity. ¶42 b) Was the knock and announce rule clearly established in the context of the … Instead, the Court remanded to consider whether the law was clearly established in a more ‘“particularized sense’” to answer the question of qualified immunity. Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199 , 125 S.Ct. at 599 .

Ronald Kramer v. Mary Cullinan

878 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 2018

Cullinan was entitled to qualified immunity. … Cullinan’s actions violated a “clearly established” right. White, 137 S. Ct at 552. III. CONCLUSION Dr. Cullinan was entitled to qualified immunity.

Jones v. American Alternative Insurance Corp

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 2022

Nonetheless, the docttine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for claims against them in their individual capacities “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Dyer, 964 F.3d at 383-85 (citing pre-2020 cases for clearly established law). Thus, Plaintiffs have successfully overcome the Police Officer Defendants’ qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage.

Whiting v. Tunica County

222 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 19, 2002

— was also clearly established. … The Court notes, under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, that the contours of this constitutional violation for qualified immunity purposes were clearly established at the relevant time.

Lum v. Koles

314 P.3d 546 · Alaska Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2013

established’ . . . .”) … The officers’ conduct was reasonable and certainly does not violate clearly established law, unlike that of the officers in Headwaters Forest Defense v.

Romero v. Bexar County

993 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 9, 2014

Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also a immunity from suit. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Ondrey v. Patterson

884 So. 2d 50 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 27, 2004

Thus, we must determine whether Ondrey has established that the trial court's order constitutes "a violation of a clearly established principle of law that resulted in a miscarriage of justice." Allstate Ins. Co. v. … Qualified immunity applies in situations where the official's conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow 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

Michael Fenwick v. United States

778 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 13, 2015

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the deputies violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. *135 I. … Fenwick’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. at 225. On appeal, the deputies challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment, renewing their assertion of qualified immunity.

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.

Kenneth Ratliff v. Aransas County, Texas

948 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 15, 2020

He offered the testimony because of a failing memory and to rebut the deputies’ qualified immunity defense in this § 1983 case. … The second “asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656.

Hoefling v. City of Miami

17 F. Supp. 3d 1227 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 6, 2014

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Behrens v. … On a motion to dismiss, “[t]o evaluate claims of qualified immunity, the Court considers whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at

Johnson v. Harris

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 7, 2024

“When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … support for the notion that the law is clearly established.”).6 Accordingly, Ms. Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim against Ms. Shelton-Denley is barred by qualified immunity.7 B.

Cunningham v. Gates

229 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 31, 2000

In order to decide the qualified immunity claims, we must determine 1) whether non-shooting officers are entitled to qualified immunity because “jamming” does not violate clearly established law, 2) whether council members … are entitled to qualified immunity because a policy of indemnifying officers against punitive damages does not violate clearly established law, and 3) whether City attorneys are entitled to qualified immunity because recommending

Bevill v. Fletcher

26 F.4th 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 2022

“Once a defendant raises a qualified-immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … Whatever one might think about qualified immunity, I think we’re duty bound to say the law is not clearly established when it takes a full-page flow chart to hold otherwise.

City of Dallas v. Half Price Books, Records, Magazines, Inc.

883 S.W.2d 374 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 18, 1994

If a police officer is immune from tort liability under the qualified immunity doctrine, the city is also immune. City of Houston v. Newsom, 858 S.W.2d 14, 19 (Tex.App. … My actions were consistent with State law and departmental regulations, and I did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.