Case law

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.

Sanchez Madox v. Tommy Thomas, Sheriff

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jul 31, 2003

of then clearly established law. … When a defendant in a Section 1983 action pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Thompson v.

Crittindon v. LeBlanc

37 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

Nonetheless, the majority concludes three DPSC defendants violated plaintiffs’ clearly established right to timely release from prison and denies them qualified immunity. … Even still, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that it violates the Constitution to hold a prisoner for 17 days while employing reasonable efforts to verify his sentence

Bodiford v. State of Ala.

854 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 17, 1994

Qualified immunity is available to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, the defendants conclude that a reasonable person would have believed their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law, and, thus, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ball v. Cook County School District

889 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 13, 1995

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 a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Government actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil trials for money damages and may not be held liable in their individual capacity if their conduct violates no clearly established

Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Salt Lake City Corp.

629 P.2d 432 · Utah Supreme Court · May 1, 1981

We think it evident that a governmental entity’s provision of winter recreation does not qualify for immunity under this test. … Standiford , and is clearly contrary to the new test enunciated in that case and applied in this one.

Gwinnett County v. King

218 Ga. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 4, 1995

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established.

Siegert v. Gilley

500 U.S. 226 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 23, 1991

Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, “[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action … This case demonstrates the desirability of this approach to a claim of immunity, for Siegert failed not only to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of Gilley’s actions,

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

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.

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.

Aldini v. Johnson

609 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

Bodine was entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the “clearly established” inquiry, the question is whether the right was “so ‘clearly established’ that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Hicks v. Feeney

596 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, D. Delaware · Nov 8, 1984

This standard mandates that an official is protected by qualified immunity except when his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. … In a recent decision, the Third Circuit defined “clearly established rights” for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Brocuglio v. Proulx

478 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 23, 2007

Defendants also complain that I should not have granted summary judgment, because the law was not clearly established with respect to the curtilage issue, and thus the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity involves a three-step analysis: (1) whether the officials violated the plaintiffs constitutional right; (2) whether the law was clearly established with respect to that right; and (3) whether reasonable

Jon Hyde v. City of Willcox

23 F.4th 863 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 6, 2022

To determine whether an officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court asks, in the order it chooses, (i) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether the right was clearly established at … Pralgo and Callahan-English violated clearly established law.

Bamdad v. Drug Enforcement Administration

617 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 22, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit for damages unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we need not decide whether it was in fact violated, because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Roger Gillispie v. Miami Twp., Ohio

18 F.4th 909 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2021

“[T]he precise scope of our appellate jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity is whether ‘the plaintiff’s version of facts demonstrates a violation of clearly established rights.’” … one and two of the qualified immunity inquiry.”

Narducci v. Moore

572 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Burge, 874 F.2d 1201, 1204-05 (7th Cir.1988), we held that officials who searched a police officer’s desk and a briefcase found in his car were immune from suit under § 1983 because the search did not violate a clearly established

Tyner v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶ 26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim because "[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one's supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the "law clearly proscribed the actions" they took.

Cuervo v. Sorenson

112 F.4th 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in dismissing her FAC on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants ask us to affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … We now examine the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. We conclude Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.