Case law

Crooks v. Maynard

718 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, D. Idaho · Aug 4, 1989

This court has found no published decision which clearly defines the scope of qualified judicial immunity. This circuit has defined qualified immunity for jury commissioners and directors of jury services. … Under this qualified immunity, they were immune so long as their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable *1465 person would have known.” Id.

Hollingsworth v. Hackler

303 S.W.3d 884 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 21, 2010

immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under § 1983 if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. 18 A right is “clearly established” when its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

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.

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.

Brown v. Truelove

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 2020

“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.” Kisela v. … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts examine (1) whether “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Ahmad v. Furlong

435 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, he must then demonstrate that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” Id. … To be sure, Appellants’ motion did not clearly raise qualified immunity with respect to the RLUIPA claim.

Vakilian v. Shaw

335 F.3d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2003

Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … now ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of Shaw’s action.

Collar v. Austin

86 F. Supp. 3d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 5, 2015

immunity, the Court is required, sua sponte, to determine whether the allegations of the complaint reflect the violation of a clearly established right. … circumstances as denials of qualified immunity.

Booker v. Graham

974 F.3d 101 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

While qualified immunity “does not require 14 a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must 15 have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” … of qualified immunity.

Jeffers v. Gomez

267 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2001

The availability of qualified immunity in such a case naturally turns on whether it was "clearly established law" that Motive Y was impermissible. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity "requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?

Robbins v. Wilkie

433 F.3d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

That is, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established. … Robbins has thus sufficiently alleged a violation of his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Robbins’ Bivens claim. 2.

Robert Andrews v. Hickman County, Tennessee

700 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Thus, qualified immunity applies “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (citing Anderson v. … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires us to ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct.

Whitten v. City of Omaha

199 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 9, 2016

were clearly established at the time it was taken. … But even assuming that Whitten has alleged a violation of his constitutional right, the contours of that right were not clearly established. *1233 The Court evaluates the defense of qualified immunity from the perspective

Tan Lam v. City of Los Banos

976 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

In sum, the district court properly denied the Rule 50(b) motion on qualified immunity as to Lam’s Fourth Amendment claim. The law was clearly established at the 30 LAM V. … Officer Acosta is Entitled to Qualified Immunity An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Ashcroft v. al- Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011).

Weatherford v. State

203 Ariz. 313 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 10, 2002

secured by the Constitution and laws.... ” ¶ 23 To prevail on such claims, a plaintiff must overcome a qualified immunity defense by proving: (1) the defendants violated one of the plaintiffs clearly established rights; … Youngberg arguably reaches the constitutional right Weatherford asserts to be clearly established. ¶ 27 Moreover, Weatherford points out that decisions from eight federal courts support the assertion of a clearly established

Alhadji Bayon v. Marshall Berkebile

29 F.4th 850 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2022

The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting that their use of force was justified and that, in any event, they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … The officers assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because “no clearly established law put them on notice that their con- 16 duct would violate Bayon’s rights.”

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.

Dukore v. District of Columbia

970 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2013

“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 … Arresting the plaintiffs An officer making an arrest is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the seizure violates the Fourth Amendment.

Wheeler v. City of Lansing

660 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2011

In order to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we must look at the objective reasonableness of the officer’s conduct in relation to clearly established law. Id. … to qualified immunity.

GRIFFIN v. THE CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2021

determining entitlement to qualified immunity” and teaches officials how to govern their conduct in the future. … Dep’t of Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011) (burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to official claiming it as defense (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982)).