Case law

Shadmani v. Barnes

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 11, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Safar v. Tingle

178 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 2016

As the Fourth Circuit has explained, “to escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” … This is a flaw in the qualified immunity doctrine; because cases resolved on the basis of qualified immunity — or, as here, on the basis of absolute immunity— are often resolved without reaching the merits, no clearly established

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.”

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.

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

28 Kan. App. 2d 744 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Mar 30, 2001

light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … The holding in Kalina leaves no doubt it was clearly established. Thereafter, a prosecutor is to be charged with knowledge that such an act was unreasonable. Long, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

William Meyers, Sr. v. Baltimore County, Maryland

713 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 1, 2013

Ryan’s clearly established constitutional rights. … We repeatedly have held that it is not required that a right violated already have been recognized by a court in a specific context before such right may be held "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

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

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.

Walter Franklin, II v. Lucas Peterson

878 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2017

DISCUSSION This is an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity as to Officers Peterson and Meath, a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ’clearly established statutory … In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity, we have authority to decide the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.

Barker v. Goodrich

649 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2011

On January 10, 2010, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment to all Defendants on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that the evidence established a constitutional violation, but the right at issue was not clearly … Accordingly, the constitutional right was clearly established and we REVERSE the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to all Defendants. III.

Shearer v. Leuenberger

256 Neb. 566 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1999

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id. … Hence, our analysis turns to whether or not that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Wojcik v. Town of North Smithfield

874 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jan 4, 1995

Second, the RCC defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ cause of action because plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Unlike state actors or private individuals charged with a deprivation of rights, a municipality is not entitled to claim qualified immunity, even for violation of rights that are not clearly established. Leatherman v.

National Camera, Inc. v. Sanchez

832 P.2d 960 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1991

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, however, the plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract which the defendant has allegedly violated. Hilliard v.

Smith v. Cochran

339 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2003

In addition, the court denied summary judgment on Cochran’s claim of qualified immunity because it found that the constitutional violation Smith alleged was clearly established at the time of the claimed violation. … Because Cochran argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the plaintiff’s version of the facts, focusing on the legal issue whether the constitutional right he allegedly violated was clearly established, we

Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo

682 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 7, 2010

A right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants’ Motion for Qualified Immunity Each Defendant argues even if his actions violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, the defense of qualified immunity shields him from liability. 4 The qualified immunity analysis

Gallaher v. Goldsmith

213 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2002

When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights … Because plaintiff pled a valid constitutional right he has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. It must next be determined if that right was “clearly established.”

Sydney Rieman v. Gloria Vasquez

96 F.4th 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 5, 2024

The panel held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit for failing to provide notice of the hearing. Ms. Rieman had a due process right to such notice and that right was clearly established. … immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights.

Tracy Presson v. Darrin Reed

65 F.4th 357 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 2023

Thus, the pretrial detainee’s “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants qualified immunity.” Id. … Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Presson, his “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants qualified immunity.”

Tanya Martin v. City of Broadview Heights

712 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2013

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … The sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited.