Case law

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.

Hydrick v. McDaniel

500 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context … b)(6) based on qualified immunity. 3.

Hays v. Ellis

331 F. Supp. 2d 1303 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 23, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Having so concluded, the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Neaves v. Hampton

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jul 1, 2024

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity with respect to Neaves’ constitutional claims. … to juror to conclude that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Remus-Milán v. Irizarry-Pagán

81 F. Supp. 3d 174 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 28, 2015

Qualified immunity Defendants argue they are shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s violation.

Randall v. City of Fairbanks

352 F. Supp. 2d 1028 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 11, 2005

Clearly Established Rights Although Randall has shown that there may have been a violation of a constitutional right, Williamson, nonetheless, is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at … Because the law governing deadly force in these circumstances was not clearly established at the time of the shooting, the Court HOLDS that Wilhamson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Adams v. NaphCare, Inc.

246 F. Supp. 3d 1128 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 31, 2017

As the Magistrate Judge noted, state actors are entitled to qualified immunity from such claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … immunity, since it was not clearly established that the agency head bore such responsibility for her subordinates.”

Auriemma v. Rice

895 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1990

We must now turn to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry and determine whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity inquiry of whether a constitutional right is clearly established.

McKay v. City of New York

32 F. Supp. 3d 499 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Law is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if “various courts have agreed that certain conduct is a constitutional violation under facts not distinguishable in a fair way from the facts presented in the

McCall v. Williams

59 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 16, 1999

Plaintiff maintains that his right to be free from the application of handcuffs which were too tight was clearly established on the date of the incident. … Just as the Supreme Court found that the officials in Wilson had violated the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, yet they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right had not been clearly established at

Cooper v. Brown

156 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 12, 2016

prong” of the qualified immunity standard. … At any rate, Hope constitutes an established part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence, upon which this court is entitled to rely.

Deskovic v. City of Peekskill

894 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2012

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “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 … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation, “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the

Jose Doe v. Dave Goodman

691 F. App'x 272 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 25, 2017

violated clearly established law). … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (officer conducting search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show search violated Fourth Amendment).

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

6 of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Thus, “[u]nless 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.”

The Mercer County Board of Education and Dr. Deborah Akers v. Amanda Shrewsbury

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2024

The respondent further argued that even if the circuit court decided that qualified immunity applied, it was abrogated by the petitioners’ violation of clearly established rights. … “It is well established that claims for both constitutional and common law qualified immunity are available only for the State, its agencies, officials, and/or employees.” Kent, 249 W.

Palmer, Brady v. Eisenhauer, Scott

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 14, 2024

Qualified Immunity Officer Pride also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Palmer’s claims because his conduct did not violate a clearly established … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Daniel Simmonds v. Genesee County

682 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2012

To satisfy the first Saucier prong and establish a constitutional violation to defeat the officers’ claim of qualified immunity, Simmonds “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly … the violation of the constitutional right was clearly established. 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Toomer v. Garrett

155 N.C. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. See Andrews, supra.

Pelerin v. Carlton County

498 N.W.2d 33 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1993

To avoid dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity, a plaintiff alleging violation of a constitutional right by a public official must allege that the violated right was “clearly established” in a particularized sense. … The law in this area was thus not “clearly established” when Pelerin was fired.

Kanzler v. Renner

937 P.2d 1337 · Wyoming Supreme Court · May 23, 1997

The standard of qualified immunity established under our common law is distinct from the federal standard. 4 In Dar-rar v. … In his summary judgment materials, Renner bases his entitlement to qualified immunity on the federal standard, stating that he acted in good faith at all times and violated no clearly established law.