Case law

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Karen Smith

889 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2018

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the … It is that rock upon which the district court’s qualified immunity decision founders. The district court was satisfied that, as it said, “[t]he extraterritorialty doctrine has been clearly established for decades.”

Barbara Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health

735 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional … See also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 685; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before

Richmond v. City of Brooklyn Center

490 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

Therefore, we proceed directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the asserted constitutional right was clearly established. … that a right is clearly established.'"

Bletz v. Gribble

641 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2011

Generally, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper if the officer was not on notice that his conduct was clearly unlawful. Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 876 (6th Cir. 2002). … However, we reverse the district court’s decision denying Denny qualified immunity.

Richard Manriquez v. Joel Ensley

46 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

But there still might not be “clearly established” case law in our circuit to withstand qualified immunity. Cf. Jessop v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established then that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Benton School District Lori Bacon, in Her Individual and Official Capacity And Lita Gattis, in Her Individual and Official Capacity v. Brandi Greer

677 S.W.3d 799 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 9, 2023

Section 1983 establishes a federal cause of action that can be filed in either state or federal court. Newton v. Etoch, 332 Ark. 325, 334, 965 S.W.2d 96, 100 (1998). … Smith, 366 Ark. 473, 480, 237 S.W.3d 1, 6 (2006) (finding no qualified immunity under section 301 because the official violated clearly established law); Smith v.

Patrick Devlin v. Richard Kalm

531 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2013

In order to overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, Devlin must show that the defendants (1) violated his constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time … “Clearly established” rights must be defined at an “appropriate level of generality” to avoid “collapsing the two qualified- immunity inquiries into one” without being so narrow that no violation can ever be found.

Campos v. Van Ness

52 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity is also not restricted to questions of established law. … Therefore, the questions relating to qualified immunity are whether Van Ness’ conduct violated rights of Martins or Campos that were “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct,” July 27, 2008, Plumhoff,

Sanchez v. Swyden

139 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 1998

Under the test for qualified immunity, Sanchez has failed to prove that he was deprived of a clearly established constitutional right. … The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The well-established test for qualified immunity requires us to engage in a two-step inquiry.

Terry Cravener v. Mike Shuster

885 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 27, 2018

Government officials, like the deputies here, are entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known … Determining qualified immunity, this court considers a “two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Borzilleri v. Mosby

189 F. Supp. 3d 551 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 31, 2016

Second, regarding the First Amendment claim, she argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate “clearly established law.” Pearson v. … Mosby argues first that Borzilleri fails to state a claim; and second, that-she is entitled to qualified immunity on her Frist Amendment claim because she did not violate “clearly established law.” a.

David New v. Dale Denver

787 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known:” Harlow v. … In a § 1983 action alleging violation of that right, qualified immunity applies when “a reasonable officer could have believed [the] arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

Fletcher Small v. Officer Brock

963 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

Of course, our holding does not mean that Small’s right was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. But we need not resolve the issue of qualified immunity in this appeal. … But even if you doubted this precedent, there’s little doubt that the alleged constitutional violation here wasn’t clearly established and thus that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

977 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Huber v. North Carolina State University

163 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials per *645 forming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff’s right to privacy was clearly established at the time.

Wiggins v. Greiner

132 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 18, 2005

Wiggins submits that the highlighted language in Roberts clearly establishes that prosecution efforts to locate a witness must be “undertaken prior to trial” to demonstrate good-faith. … Whether the challenged photo display in this case clearly qualifies as a confirmatory identification is an issue of state law not relevant to our habeas review. See Estelle v.

Barham v. Ramsey

338 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established … This lack of clearly established law is relevant both to determining the “reasonableness” of an officer’s actions and whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Lee v. Tucker

904 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue" (quotation and alteration omitted)).