Case law

Alston v. Read

663 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2011

[2] When evaluating a denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, our review is limited to the “purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established law.” … The qualified immunity inquiry is two-pronged. We must ask whether “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether “the right was clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle

622 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2010

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 person … The ACLU takes issue with the District Court’s decision to skip the “violation prong” of the qualified immunity inquiry and proceed directly to the “clearly established” prong.

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8020, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,778 Sue Kruse and Lance Caspary, on Behalf of Themselves and Their Minor Son Kanoa v. State of Hawai'i

68 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

When a public official asserts qualified immunity from liability in a Sec. 1983 action, we must determine whether (1) the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established and (2) whether under that law, an official … Clearly Established Right 32 While the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" in a "particularized" sense, "this is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified

Scotia v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm'rs

933 F.3d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Although there need not be “a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate,” or else “officers are entitled to qualified … Qualified immunity, on the other hand, asks a different question: were the officer’s actions “unreasonable” under clearly established law? See id. at 1125–28. Different questions can produce different answers.

Kevin R. Black v. Al C. Parke, Kenneth Case, Walt Chapleau, and Tom Campbell

4 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 1993

Defendants maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not so clearly established that they would have known that their conduct was unlawful. … However, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper. Poe v.

Brumfield v. Hollins

551 F.3d 322 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 2, 2008

Analysis “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … In the qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he subjective deliberate indifference standard serves only to demonstrate the clearly established law in effect at the time of the incident . . .

Gavrilles v. O'CONNOR

611 F. Supp. 210 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1985

The case is now before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which raises *211 the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Under Harlow v. … The impermissibility of retaliating against an employee for engaging in union activities was clearly established by 1982.

Wells v. Cole

355 F. Supp. 3d 841 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018

that right was clearly established at the time of the employee's firing." … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, "[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours 'must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Russell Ex Rel. Jn v. Virg-In

258 P.3d 795 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 22, 2011

Qualified Immunity And Claims Of Excessive Force Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity because she did not violate clearly established federal law does not protect the municipality from liability....

Lewis v. City of Ft. Collins

903 F.2d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 14, 1990

In some cases, discovery may be necessary to determine whether the defendants’ challenged conduct violated clearly established law and thus, whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Objective Reasonableness Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

ESTATE OF ROSENBAUM BY PLOTKIN v. City of New York

975 F. Supp. 206 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 22, 1997

Was this Right Clearly Established? … This “clearly established” linchpin for determining the applicability of the qualified immunity defense transcends the viability of the § 1983 claim. See Gomez, 446 U.S. at 640 , 100 S.Ct. at 1923-1924 .

Maria Salim, Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Reyes, I/o v. William Proulx

93 F.3d 86 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 23, 1996

have violated was clearly established. … We need to determine only whether, on plaintiffs version, an immunity defense is established as a matter of law. C. Merits of Qualified Immunity Defense The right to be free of excessive force is clearly established.

City of Escondido v. Emmons

586 U.S. 38 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 7, 2019

The question in this qualified immunity case is whether two police officers violated clearly established law when they forcibly apprehended a man at the scene of a reported domestic violence incident. … Assuming without deciding that a court of appeals decision may constitute clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity, see City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.

Dimarco-Zappa v. Cabanillas

238 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 19, 2001

right at issue was not clearly established under Harlow v. … In contrast with their other arguments, defendants did not waive the qualified immunity argument. 13 However, defendants *36 based their immunity argument primarily on the contention that no clearly established right was

Carmen Nereida-Gonzalez v. Cirilo Tirado-Delgado

990 F.2d 701 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which … to don the cloak of qualified immunity.

Tony Velasquez v. John Senko

813 F.2d 1509 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1987

The court found that appellants failed to address the pertinent issue for a claim of qualified immunity: whether the law they were accused of violating was clearly established. … qualified immunity claim meets Cohen "separate from the merits" test because it involves only "legal determination that a given proposition of law was not clearly established"); id.

Robert A. Borucki v. W. Michael Ryan, Etc.

827 F.2d 836 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 27, 1987

Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we hold that Ryan’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of privacy and that he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … Murchek, 766 F.2d 1494 , 1500-01 (11th Cir.l985)(officials had qualified immunity where federal due process rights not clearly established, although state statutory due process rights were clearly established); Powers v.

Chamberlain v. Mathis

151 Ariz. 551 · Arizona Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1986

Because the decisions just cited establish that government executive employees are presumptively entitled to some immunity, our analysis is limited to a comparison of qualified and absolute immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for acts within the scope of their public duties unless the official knew or should have known that he was acting in violation of established law or acted in

Parker v. State

337 Md. 271 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1995

In particular, the Court has distinguished between the qualified and narrower immunity for discretionary acts generally accorded to public officials, and absolute judicial immunity, which, unlike qualified immunity, applies … Mele, 267 Md. 437, 444 , 298 A.2d 156, 161 (1972) (contrasting the absolute immunity of judges with the qualified immunity of law enforcement officers); Eliason v.

Lawrence Thompson v. Pete Copeland

885 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

Dissenting, Judge Christen would hold that the police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive force claim because plaintiff’s right not to have a gun pointed at his head was clearly established … Conclusion Because the law was not clearly established within the parameters dictated by the Supreme Court, Copeland is entitled to qualified immunity and the grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.