Case law

Bass v. Coughlin

800 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 11, 1991

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While the right to a kosher diet was “clearly established” during the time in question, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that summary judgment was not proper on the qualified immunity question.

Van Sandt v. Brown

944 P.2d 449 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1997

Under federal case law, 5 a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a search and seizure if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, … This rule was “clearly established law” at the time Brown searched Van Sandt’s trailer.

Reuben Garcia v. City of New Hope

984 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 5, 2021

Thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless: (1) [they] violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer would know of the right at … Because I conclude that Garcia has not shown a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, I would affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on this claim.

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

Del A. v. Edwin Edwards, Individually and as Governor of the State of Louisiana

855 F.2d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 1988

The district court denied the motion, holding that because the alleged illegal actions violated clearly established statutory and federal constitutional rights, qualified immunity was not available. … Id. *1151 Thus, the concept of “clearly established” had to be defined narrowly to serve the goals of qualified immunity.

David N. OSOLINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lt. KANE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

92 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 1996

immunity, typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established’.” … “Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Allen v.

Hurst v. Sikes

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 24, 2022

Defendants then contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on each of the claims. … Similarly, Deputy Sikes is not entitled to qualified immunity. Pace v.

Omar Ex Rel. Cannon v. Lindsey

243 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants, all of whom are being sued in them individual capacities, raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Last spring, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that clarifies how a court is to determine whether a particular right was “clearly established” for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. In Hope v.

Jaeger v. Dubuque County

880 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Mar 18, 1995

The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right).

Kyle v. Civil Service Com'n

588 So. 2d 1154 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1992

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). [4] However, we need not decide whether absolute immunity applies to the present factual situation since we find that the doctrine of qualified immunity is clearly … Considering the above cited principles, we now review the pleadings in this matter to determine whether the plaintiff has set forth material facts establishing that the defendants violated a clearly established right of which

IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF CHRISTOPHER R. ARABIA

495 P.3d 1103 · Nevada Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2021

immunity and the State Bar lacked jurisdiction over him.2 Qualified immunity does not apply to attorney disciplinary proceedings Arabia contends that he cannot be professionally disciplined because his actions … are entitled to protection under the qualified immunity doctrine, and thus, this matter must be dismissed.

Finlan v. Dallas Independent School District

90 S.W.3d 395 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Nov 27, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from liability under Section 1983 for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It did not address the first inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis; that is, it did not address the question of law whether the law was clearly established in 1992 that the filing of a civil suit, alleged to be malicious

Dillard v. City of Springdale, Arkansas

930 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2019

“An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Estate of Walker v. … Absent either a clearly established right or a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies. See Estate of Walker, 881 F.3d at 1060. We apply the same standard to claims under the Arkansas Constitution.

Kelly Martin v. Jordan Turner

73 F.4th 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 21, 2023

Assuming without deciding that decisions of the Eighth Circuit may constitute clearly established law for qualified-immunity purposes, cf. City of -4- Escondido v. … Thus, Martin failed to show that clearly established law prohibited Deputy Turner’s conduct, and Deputy Turner is entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Carnell v. Grimm

872 F. Supp. 746 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Dec 27, 1994

Qualified Immunity Plaintiff enjoys a clearly established right against arrest without probable cause. See Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir.1991) (right is clearly established). … the qualified immunity standard requires more than the firm establishment of a generalized right.

Ludt v. Youngstown

2016 Ohio 8553 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2016

City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 302 (6th Cir.2005). {¶13} Once qualified immunity is raised, it is the plaintiff's burden of proof to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, we need not consider whether Williams is protected by qualified immunity.

Dewayne Cox v. Bradley Quinn

828 F.3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 6, 2016

Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 2004) (element of qualified immunity analysis is that the right in question “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged offense” … The court further found that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the duty of jail officials to protect prisoners from inmate violence was clearly established in April of 2011.

Vitalone v. Curran

665 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 17, 1987

The court held that Anderson did not enjoy qualified immunity, because “the Creightons’ fourth amendment rights and the ‘exigent circumstances’ doctrine were ‘clearly established’ on [the date of the search].” … Thus, to win summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, defendants must establish either that the law establishing the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, or that, in light of the facts and circumstances

Jones v. County of Los Angeles

802 F.3d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 2015

However, “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … Step Two: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Ronald T. Borello v. Richard Allison, Lisa Gales, John Liefer, and John Inman

446 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 11, 2006

whether that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged conduct.” … Because Plaintiff has not shown that his constitutional rights were violated, we need not move to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the attack