Case law

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

Jennings v. Jones

499 F.3d 2 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 17, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks “whether the constitutional right ... was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the incident such that it would ‘be … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Rodis v. City & County of San Francisco

558 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.” … The arrest, therefore, was not clearly established as unlawful. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Diaz v. Cantu

123 F.4th 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 13, 2024

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528–30 (1985) (qualified immunity based on a lack of clearly established law); Plumhoff v. … established to strip an official of qualified immunity.

Braithwaite v. Tropea

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 27, 2023

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, courts consider “whether the facts shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was clearly established … The United State Supreme Court has long extended qualified immunity to court reporters, such as Conner, where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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

Jenkins v. University of Minnesota

838 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

Qualified Immunity “‘Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Where, as here, a defendant fails to establish that he did not violate a right or that the right in question was not clearly established, then he is not entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether he acted under

Tangreti v. Bachmann

983 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 28, 2020

Bachmann appealed from the denial of qualified immunity arguing that the scope of supervisory liability for deliberate- indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment is not clearly established after Ashcroft v. … is not clearly established.

James Ryan Singletary v. Juan Vargas

804 F.3d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2015

Qualified Immunity Resolution of Defendant’s appeal requires us to decide whether Plaintiff proved that Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.9 Qualified immunity balances two important … Clearly Established Law Even assuming a constitutional violation, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff can show that his Fourth Amendment rights were “clearly established” at the time of

Curtis Stewart v. Anne Precythe

91 F.4th 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2024

As relevant here, the district court denied the motion for qualified immunity, concluding that “Stewart has sufficiently alleged that Precythe violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the … Finding no allegation of a constitutional violation in the complaint, we need not consider whether the right was clearly established to conclude that Precythe is entitled to qualified immunity. Kulkay v.

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

Adams v. Lindsey

759 F. Supp. 795 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 1991

A Clearly Established Seizure: In Anderson, supra, the Court explained that the relevant legal rule under which the qualified immunity issue is judged must be fact specific. … ’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Katz v. United States

194 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1999

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court held that the law governing the use of force in an arrest was clearly established. … A defendant will always be entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing his or her conduct was not clearly established -the first prong of the qualified immunity defense. 30 As a fallback position, Saucier argues

(PC) Castellano v. Shrum

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

Legal Standard – Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 14 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ramirez–Palmer, 25 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 27 was clearly established at

Goodwin v. City of Fultondale

706 So. 2d 766 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Oct 17, 1997

immunity because their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. … Clearly, the above testimony, alone, is insufficient to establish that Officer Hamilton was *Page 770 acting pursuant to a well-established municipal policy or custom.

Williams v. Garrett

722 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 4, 1989

In order to be entitled to qualified immunity the party’s conduct must not have violated clearly established constitutional norms. Id. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. … This court must determine what was clearly established in 1986.