Case law

Saved Magazine v. Spokane Police Department

19 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2021

The panel held that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s … Plaintiffs first argue that the district court erred in concluding that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity because the law underpinning the alleged First Amendment violation was clearly established.

MAHAMED v. Anderson

612 F.3d 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 30, 2010

Pedersen now appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Mahamed’s constitutional rights, and even if he did, the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … “We have jurisdiction over an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity when the issue on appeal ‘turns on a legal determination [of] whether certain facts show a violation of clearly established law.’”

Siegert v. Gilley

692 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1988

When the Harlow Court redefined the qualified immunity defense it provided an additional basis for defendant to retain his qualified immunity even if his actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Our inquiry does not end with the identification of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the stripping away of defendant’s qualified immunity.

Crone v. Connelly

74 Conn. App. 788 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 4, 2003

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Vann v. City of Southaven

199 F. Supp. 3d 1129 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 10, 2016

As such, if a court concludes that the “clearly established” prong provides a clearer basis for deciding the qualified immunity issue, then it may consider that prong first. Pearson v. … Thus, the plaintiff in this case has done exactly what the Supreme Court stated he should not do, namely rely upon the broad Gamer standard in order to meet the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

Williams v. Goord

142 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 2001

Even if the applicable law was clearly established when the purported violation occurred, officials may still successfully assert qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were “objectively reasonable.” … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is therefore only appropriate if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed

Tonya Weinberg Gilmore v. Pam Hodges

738 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless they violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took place. … The Plaintiffs’ reliance on unpublished case law drawn from other circuits and from the district courts is unavailing, because only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Padilla v. Mason

169 S.W.3d 493 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

of qualified immunity and official immunity. … Because there was no clearly established rule which would prohibit Mason from using the force that he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Lang v. City of Nacogdoches

942 S.W.2d 752 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Mar 27, 1997

In suits alleging illegal arrest, the qualified immunity determination turns on whether a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. *767 Anderson v.

Steven J. KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert G. BORG, Defendant-Appellant

60 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 28, 1995

Despite this erroneous statement in his order, however, the magistrate judge ultimately conducted the proper inquiry for a qualified immunity examination: He ruled that the right allegedly violated was clearly established … Appellants argue that they should have been granted qualified immunity because the second, “clearly established,” prong of the test has not been met.

Burns v. Citarella

443 F. Supp. 2d 464 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 18, 2006

Qualified Immunity: Merits The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Nevertheless, “Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Newkirk v. Enzor

240 F. Supp. 3d 426 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 8, 2017

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 or constitutional … and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Willashia Williams v. City of York

967 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2020

B The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at

Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol

181 Cal. App. 4th 856 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2010

“A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right. [Citation.] As stated in Saucier [v. … The high court explained that ‘[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.’ [Citation.]

Young v. City of Albuquerque

77 F. Supp. 3d 1154 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 24, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Hartman v. Middleton

974 P.2d 1007 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1998

to defeat the defense of qualified immunity. … Where qualified immunity is raised in a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must determine, based upon the allegations of the plaintiff, whether a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official

Bishop v. Hackel

636 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.

Isely v. Capuchin Province

877 F. Supp. 1055 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 7, 1995

General Electric Company, supra, make clear that the initial foundational requirement a proponent of expert scientific testimony must meet as a pre-requisite to admissibility is to establish that the witness is qualified … It was in Frye that the "general acceptance” requirement was first established. 4 .

Rousselo v. Starling

128 N.C. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1998

We agree and conclude that under the doctrine of qualified immunity Trooper Starling was immune from suit because a reasonable person in his position would not have known that his actions violated a clearly established right … Police officers sued under section 1983 are not protected by qualified immunity if the officers’ conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”