Case law

Molloy v. Blanchard

907 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 22, 1995

Chief Blanchard Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions “from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Even where the law is “clearly established,” qualified immunity may apply if the government official can prove “extraordinary circumstances” such that he or she “neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard

Shah v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School

54 F. Supp. 3d 681 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 20, 2014

Shah violated a clearly established right. … Shah violated one or more of Shah’s clearly established constitutional rights when he wrote to the SPC, Dr. Shah is entitled to qualified immunity. E The court now considers whether Dr.

People of Michigan v. Robert Elijah Anthony

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2019

“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … Defendant maintains that the more recent passage of the MMMA calls into question the Michigan Supreme Court’s prior holding in Kazmierczak, which allows the smell of marijuana alone to establish probable cause.

Barbara Donald v. Tyler Norris

131 F.4th 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

We need address only whether Burrell’s right to some other treatment was clearly established because that answer resolves the qualified-immunity question. … Indeed, the formulation from the Hill dicta would eliminate the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity analysis as we know it.

Gloria Jean Harper, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Jordan Harper a Minor and Jordan Harper v. Harris County, Texas, John P. Denholm

21 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 1994

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Anderson v. … The examination of a claim of qualified immunity is a two-step process. The first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional' right. Siegert v.

Winfield v. Keefe

357 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2019

"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," City of Escondido, Cal. v. … "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id.

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.

Porter v. MASSARELLI

303 Ga. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2010

(a) Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … clearly established law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Irizarry v. Yehia

38 F.4th 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 11, 2022

The district court nonetheless held that Officer Yehia was entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Irizarry had not shown a violation of clearly established law. … Irizarry has shown a violation of clearly established law. Officer Yehia is not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

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

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.

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

Bergeron v. Cabral

560 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

The Qualified Immunity Inquiry. A district court's ruling granting or denying a summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity engenders de novo review. … The third prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is qualitatively different from the first two prongs.

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.