Case law

Terry v. Cnty. of Milwaukee

357 F. Supp. 3d 732 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 11, 2019

The test for qualified immunity is (1) whether the defendants' alleged actions violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) "whether the implicated right was clearly established at the time." Jones v. … Therefore, if Bevenue did ignore Terry's cries for help as she went into labor, qualified immunity would not protect Bevenue from suit because "qualified immunity does not insulate state actors from violations of clearly

Stephen Burrell v. Mike McIlroy Glen C. Rector Jeff Thorpe

464 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 2006

Moreover, even if Rule 41 were applicable to the search, at the time of the search the failure to serve a warrant at the outset of a search was not a clearly established violation of the constitution. … Thus, on the facts of this case, the district court did not err in finding that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Appeal of William Shaughnessy

804 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 3, 1986

When a government official asserts a defense of qualified immunity, his argument is that, even assuming the plaintiff’s allegations are true, he is immune from suit because the law allegedly violated was not clearly established … ” were clearly established.

Callahan v. Millard County

494 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 16, 2007

The district court held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Callahan did not establish that the officers violated a clearly established right. … Callahan’s rights were clearly established Having established that Mr. Callahan’s rights were violated, we now turn to whether these rights were clearly established.

Pyle v. Woods

874 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

Database was not clearly established. … As in the Pyle matter, the district court concluded Detective Woods and Mayor Cullimore were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established.

Mueller v. Auker

576 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2009

by the Court of Appeals — that Mitchell’s actions violated clearly established law....” … The legal issues involved in that appeal-whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections— are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity.

Smith v. Coughlin

727 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 28, 1989

The remainder of this case must nevertheless be disposed of on qualified immunity grounds. 7 State officials are immune from suits for damages 8 alleging constitutional violations if it was not clearly established at the … The court further held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the officials had not violated clearly established law, citing three reasons: (1) the defendant prison officials could reasonably have

BD. OF COM'RS OF EFFINGHAM CTY. v. Farmer

228 Ga. App. 819 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 15, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by reason of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law; in this regard

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.

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 1991

In opposition to the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a “constructive entry … On the issue of qualified immunity, Elder argued in the district court that the law was clearly established that an Idaho warrant was required to make a “constructive *1391 entry” over the threshold.

Jimenez v. City of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2025

The Officers Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 5 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “For purposes of qualified 22 immunity's clearly established prong, there does not have to be a case directly on 23 point.” D'Braunstein v. Cal.

Crowell v. Kirkpatrick

667 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, D. Vermont · Sep 14, 2009

“clearly established” right. … “If the right [alleged to be violated] was not clearly established ..., then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk, 496 F.3d at 154 .

Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan.

38 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 23, 1999

“If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.” Mick v. … Even if so, the law on this point is not clearly established and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any such claim. B.

McGuire v. County of Hawai'i. Concurring Opinion by Ginoza, J, filed 04/08/2025 [ada].

Hawaii Supreme Court · Apr 8, 2025

Rafe Foreman, Qualified Immunity: A Legal Fiction That Has Outlived Utility, 48 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 503, 519 (2022). The good faith test evolved to a clearly-established-law test. Harlow v. … Qualified immunity whitewashes civil rights deprivations by excusing bad-acting officials from liability so long as their conduct does not offend a clearly established right.

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

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.

Johnson v. Adams

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 28, 2021

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff first asserts that his federal malicious prosecution and Brady violation claims were clearly established in 1999. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the official violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established at the time” of the official’s conduct. District of Columbia v.

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.

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.

Amato v. City of Richmond

875 F. Supp. 1124 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 15, 1994

Qualified immunity is also appropriate because it is not clearly established how the law would apply to Hosiek’s conduct. He spoke with the Chief Magistrate after another magistrate had denied Acola a warrant. … Hosick’s decisions in this grey area are protected by the qualified immunity doctrine. Amato has cited no authority explaining what clearly established law this conduct violated.