Case law

Hlubek v. Pelecky

701 N.W.2d 93 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 22, 2005

We quoted a Supreme Court case regarding qualified immunity and the philosophy underlying it: “[T]he qualified immunity defense ‘shield[s] [government agents] 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 known....’

Jones v. Buckner

963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 2013

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … However, the Eleventh Circuit has “held time and again that clearly established general principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity.” Harbert Intern., Inc. v.

Simpson v. Hines

730 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 8, 1989

If a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant police officers would have known his or her use of force violated the clearly established law, it is objectively unreasonable. Graham v. … This court finds, taking the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, that a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant police officers, would have known that the actions taken in the jail cell violated clearly established

White v. Taylor

677 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 13, 1988

ground of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Thrower v. Pennsylvania

873 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2012

Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity does not apply because Decedent’s rights were clearly established at the time the Individual Defendants acted, even if it was uncertain at that time whether their actions would subject … Instantly, Defendants’ contention that it was not clearly established law that certain portions of the Medicaid Act create individually enforceable rights misses the qualified immunity mark.

Earles v. Perkins

788 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded 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 … have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of the clearly-established law and the information that the arresting officer possessed"). 9 The Appellants also assert that Earles and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity

United States Ex Rel. Vaughn v. United Biologics, L.L.C.

907 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2018

Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 290–94 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity was not waived on this basis). … But this principle of interpretation, known as the “Series-Qualifier Canon,” applies only when context clearly establishes that it is intended. Reading Law at 147–51.

Wilson v. Strong

156 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1998

General Qualified Immunity Principles Qualified immunity shields a § 1983 defendant from liability for harms arising from her discretionary acts, so long as her acts do not violate any clearly established statutory … Second, "[i]n this circuit, the law can be "clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Cristo v. Evangelidis

90 Mass. App. Ct. 585 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 28, 2016

[Q]ualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional … the defendant's position would understand that his conduct violated those clearly established rights.

Pinder v. Skero

375 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2019

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The Fifth Circuit has explained the "clearly established" prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be "on notice that

Clark v. Coleman

335 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 14, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Mullenix v. … Dec. 20, 2006) (holding that calling a police officer an "asshole" and an "Opie-Taylor-looking motherfucker" was protected speech, but finding qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in 2003).

Neil Morgan v. Fairfield Cty., Ohio

903 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The district court was correct to conclude that the law was not clearly established, so that the claims against the individual officers failed on qualified immunity grounds. … Specifically, the court held, qualified immunity was appropriate because even if intruding onto the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established that such an action was a violation at the time of

Shawn Manning v. C.J. Ryan

13 F.4th 705 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 20, 2021

Defendants moved for summary judgment claiming qualified immunity, arguing that Manning’s alleged right to see his children was not clearly established. … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Id.

Moore v. Miami-Dade County

502 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 18, 2007

in a constitutional violation of a clearly established right. … clearly established by case law or otherwise.

(PC) Anderson v. Becerra

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2020

Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal on 25 immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim where the immunity defense 26 is clear on the face of the complaint); Washington … the face of the complaint, and 3 the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA[]”).

Patrick A. Dadd v. Anoka County

827 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2016

Anoka also rests its claim for qualified immunity on the argument that Dadd’s right to treatment in this particular situation was not clearly established, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Even if a complaint fairly alleges a violation of a constitutional right, an official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Cassady v. Yellowstone County Montana Sheriff Department

333 Mont. 371 · Montana Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2006

We now turn to the issue of whether the Officers’ failure to knock and announce was reasonable for purposes of determining qualified immunity. ¶42 b) Was the knock and announce rule clearly established in the context of the … Instead, the Court remanded to consider whether the law was clearly established in a more ‘“particularized sense’” to answer the question of qualified immunity. Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199 , 125 S.Ct. at 599 .

Swope v. Krischer

783 So. 2d 1164 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 18, 2001

In discussing the requirement that the law be clearly established, the court stated: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such … The complaint does not show a violation of a clearly established right by these defendants. Therefore, qualified immunity protects appellees.

Stutzman v. Krenik

350 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 10, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Stutzman has alleged facts that state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, the Court will not dismiss the claim at this stage based on the defense of qualified immunity. B.

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 1987

In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, our determination is limited to the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged support a violation of clearly established law: An appellate court … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.