Case law

Leydens v. City of Des Moines

484 N.W.2d 594 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 13, 1992

The Qualified Immunity Issue. … The defendants argue that under a qualified immunity claim only an “arguable” case of probable cause need be established.

Uduko v. Cozzens

975 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 27, 2013

Plaintiff goes on to argue that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff pled that his rights that were violated were clearly established at the time of defendants’ conduct. … Of course, those rights are clearly established. However, if courts define rights at such a broad level, qualified immunity will virtually cease to exist. Therefore, in Anderson 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.

Green v. City of New York

465 F.3d 65 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 5, 2006

immunity. 12 The defense of qualified immunity and the merits of the alleged constitutional violations are intertwined because the first step in a qualified immunity analysis is determining "in the light most favorable to … Giblin is entitled to qualified immunity for the seizure he directed unless (1) Walter's constitutional right to be free from seizure was clearly established, and (2) it was objectively unreasonable for Giblin to believe

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 .

Bedinghaus v. Modern Graphic Arts

15 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

Clearly, “the company” refers to the Times and its affiliates, not to some entity that happens to purchase the assets of one of the affiliates. We see no ambiguity in the crucial terms. … As the First Circuit said in Bellino: Federal courts have established no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA.

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

Payne v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.

Nebraska Court of Appeals · May 3, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil dam- ages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity consists of two inquiries: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the

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.

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.

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.

Musso v. Hourigan

836 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 5, 1988

In reaching this result, the Court noted that the doctrine of qualified immunity rests on the belief that "where an official's duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the … Qualified Immunity 16 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official performing discretionary functions is protected from personal liability to the extent that his "conduct does not violate clearly established

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.

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.

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.

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.

Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn.

534 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Was the Law Clearly Established?

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.