Case law

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

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.

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.”

Randy Berkshire v. Debra Dahl

928 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2019

“In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Page 23 Accordingly, Berkshire has produced sufficient evidence to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and he can survive Sergeant Nelson’s assertion of qualified immunity.

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.

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

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.

Dunn v. Castro

621 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 14, 2010

On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether governing law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Mabe v. … [3] A court, when deciding whether there has been a viola- tion of a “clearly established right” for qualified immunity, must strike the proper balance in defining that right. In Ander- son v.

John H. Chambers v. Colorado Department of Corrections Margaret Heil, in Her Individual and Official Capacity

205 F.3d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 7, 2000

Chambers insisted the sex was consensual, and the police evidently were unable to establish otherwise. … Because the state of the law was not established when these actions were taken, the prison officials named in this lawsuit are entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, Mr. Chambers’ claim for damages cannot be sustained.

Naylor v. State of LA

123 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 9, 1997

First, the court determines whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, to a given set of facts."14 Accordingly, this case fits squarely within that class of unappealable, fact-based qualified immunity orders contemplated by

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.

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

Hereford v. Warren

536 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

The district court granted ha-beas relief after concluding that the state court’s holding represented an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C … That conclusion, however, misapprehends controlling law for AEDPA purposes; the language found in Minsky is not a Supreme Court holding that reflects clearly established federal law.

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.

Pooler v. Hempstead Police Department

897 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 14, 2012

that preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. 1. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

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

Penate v. Hanchett

944 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 13, 2019

This appeal raises issues under the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test for supervisory state officials. … Hanchett does not separately argue that any ruling on our part on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity is "inextricably intertwined," and so he has waived such argument. See United States v.

Flanagan v. Scearce

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 23, 2021

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 would have … clearly established law”); Graves v.

Richardson v. Chevrefils

131 N.H. 227 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Dec 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, supra at 818 , a defendant is entitled to immunity unless his actions violated “legal norms . . . clearly established at the time of the challenged actions,” Mitchell v. … Nonetheless, inquiries into immunity and into the sufficiency of a complaint obviously overlap considerably, and a complaint that clearly fails to state a claim need hardly be the subject of a subtle enquiry into qualified

Montoya v. Vigil

898 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 7, 2018

in the proceedings against him, he only argues the statements’ use at trial violated his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights. … these issues, we find it unnecessary to address whether the Detectives’ interrogation tactics were actually coercive under clearly established law