Case law

Hernandez v. Skinner

383 F. Supp. 3d 1077 · District Court, D. Montana · May 29, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit unless the plaintiff can show (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … "Qualified immunity is no immunity at all 'if clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." City & Cty. Of S.F. v.

Delph v. Trent

86 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 8, 2000

The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The basic question for a court adjudicating a defense of qualified immunity, however, is whether official would have reasonably known his conduct violated clearly established law.

Benavidez v. Shutiva

8 N.M. Ct. App. 95 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

“The granting of qualified immunity results in immunity 5 from suit.” Oldfield v. … Since the law was not clearly established, the 4 defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was 5 reversed. Id. 6 {41} Reichle controls our analysis here.

Arnette Rodgers v. 36th District Court

529 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2013

Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-step inquiry for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … clearly established law at the time that it was committed.

Jones v. Department of Health

140 Wash. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. 23 Jones claims the individual defendants violated his

Matthew Robinson v. Stewart Condley

791 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2015

was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Matthew argues Trooper Condley is not entitled to qualified immunity because case law clearly established at the time of the incident that an officer may be liable for failing to intervene to prevent the use of excessive

Silva v. Town of Springer

121 N.M. 428 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1996

Section 1983 because of Appellees’ defense of qualified immunity. 21. Public officials have qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. … his or her conduct was violating that clearly established right.

Grice v. McVeigh

873 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

If McVeigh and Farina had a duty to intervene in those circumstances, that duty was not clearly established, and the defendants therefore enjoy qualified immunity on that claim. … Since, as we have already ruled, McVeigh did not violate clearly established law, Farina is entitled to qualified immunity as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is reversed. .

Jamie Becker v. Zachary Effriechs

821 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 12, 2016

to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” … to qualified immunity on this record.

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.

Kevin O'ROuRke v. Smithsonian Institution Press and the Smithsonian Institution, Docket No. 04-0151-Cv

399 F.3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 16, 2005

O’Rourke pointed out that the Smithsonian was created as an independent establishment of the United States, citing 20 U.S.C. *116 § 41, and that § 1498(b) does not mention establishments, or trust instrumentalities, of the … Prior to 1960, however, the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity from suits for copyright infringement, and the result was, “inequitabl[y],” that government employees — who could not claim sovereign immunity

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.

Elmer Pace and Linda Pace v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, and Brian Danner

201 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2000

of clearly established law.” … have violated plaintiffs clearly established right.”

Thompson v. Farmer

945 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 28, 1996

Taken together Mitchell and Johnson establish a continuum along which the court makes qualified immunity decisions. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity proper where plaintiff’s complaint did not allege a clearly established’ legal norm or its violation).

Stamps Ex Rel. Estate of Stamps v. Town of Framingham

813 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 5, 2016

The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established. … any Courts of Appeals . . . decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity

Thompson v. Upshur County TX

245 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2001

To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define “clearly established law” at the proper level of generality. Anderson v. … Thus, the issue as to sheriff Cross’s claim of qualified immunity is whether his policies were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.

Wares v. VanBebber

231 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … In examining the issue of qualified immunity, defendants argued that the proper inquiry was whether plaintiffs right to special feeding accommodations for Ramadan was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

State v. W.S.B.

453 N.J. Super. 206 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2018

The defendant bears that burden of establishing the immunity by a preponderance *233 of the evidence. … "[I]t is only when the facts known to the prosecutor clearly indicate or clearly establish the appropriateness of an instruction that the duty of the prosecution arises."

Clarence Belton, Jr. v. Heather Loveridge

129 F.4th 271 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 26, 2025

And the district court did not apply the well-established analysis for determining Loveridge’s qualified immunity, vel non. … Under the well-established analysis, Officer Loveridge would be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless (1) she violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly

Abell v. Dewey

847 P.2d 36 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1993

However, certain considerations may defeat a claim of qualified immunity. … In a recent opinion involving qualified immunity, we set out the following: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense