Case law

Cody Jones v. City of Elyria, Ohio

947 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2020

Standard Of Review For Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability for official acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Walker v. … As this collection of rights is clearly established, the two officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the wrongful-arrest claim. b. Mitchell.

Walter Melton v. David Abston

841 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

Qualified Immunity 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 … Sullivan is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mercado v.

Redmond v. Crowther

882 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … Clearly Established Even if we assume a constitutional violation occurred, moreover, the officers would still be entitled to qualified immunity because no case clearly establishes this right.

Hadley v. Gutierrez

526 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 2008

Discussion Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory … We turn now to the second inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis, whether the right to be free from excessive force was clearly established. B.

Martin v. City of Albuquerque

147 F. Supp. 3d 1298 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 17, 2015

Martin maintains that Padilla is not entitled to qualified immunity because his “right to be free from excessive force was clearly established.” … Clearly Established Rights, in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Brodie v. Worthington

841 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2012

’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials in civil litigation arising from their official conduct ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Hung Lam v. City of San Jose

869 F.3d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 2017

Finding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Lam, demonstrated a constitutional violation of clearly established law, the district court denied Officer West’s motion based on qualified immunity.2 Officer … demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.”

Alexander v. County of Los Angeles

64 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 1995

under the clearly established principles of law governing that conduct. … Under this approach, we find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Tripp v. Department of Defense

173 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2001

Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law Most executive officials are immune from suits alleging constitutional and statutory violations unless they violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … In discussing the qualified immunity standard, those courts have focused primarily on the question of a violation of clearly established law. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

Leibson v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

84 Ohio App. 3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials under the objective standard which tests whether their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … 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.

West Virginia of Corrections v. Tracy Jividen

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2015

The WVDOC argues that the circuit court’s reason for denying summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity is clearly erroneous and is flawed in several major respects. … “[T]he doctrine of qualified or official immunity bars a claim of mere negligence against a State agency . . . and WVDOC’s argument that qualified immunity shields the WVDOC from the Plaintiff’s claim should

Hawkins v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Coffey Cnty. Kan.

376 F. Supp. 3d 1200 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that even if plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her due process rights, Maley and Phelan are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly … Alternatively, the Court finds that Maley and Phelan are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because at the time of the alleged violation, the law was not clearly established. See, e.g. , Greene v.

Jordan Venema v. Fred West

133 F.4th 625 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

After concluding that the Complaint sufficiently alleged that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, the district court determined that DeAngelo was not entitled to qualified immunity, because clearly established … Violation of a Clearly Established Right Having concluded that the Estate sufficiently pleaded that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis

T & M HOMES, INC. v. Township of Mansfield

162 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 7, 1978

Defendants claim that they are entitled to an absolute immunity, while plaintiffs concede qualified immunity but no more. … In addition to overcoming a defense of qualified immunity, they must establish policy or custom which violates a constitutional right. In this action there is no point in holding defendants board and committee liable.

Sanzone v. Gray

884 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

They all raised a qualified-immunity defense, arguing that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. … To decide whether Gray is entitled to qualified immunity, this court must ask: (1) whether his conduct violated Koster's Fourth Amendment right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Pauly v. White

874 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

are entitled to qualified immunity. … But, as we explained above, Officer -White is entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged use of excessive force was not clearly established in the circumstances of this case.

Roe v. Fryer

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 25, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Cox v. Maine State Police

391 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 3, 2004

In that way, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from civil -7- liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In short, -10- to set aside the buckler of qualified immunity "the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized,

Liberal v. Estrada

632 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

right violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … Construing the facts in favor of Plaintiff, the use of force was not reasonable and violated clearly established constitutional law. Therefore, Officers Estrada and Keegan are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.