Case law

Wheeler v. Marengo

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

Appx. 647, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The law in this circuit 6 is clearly established that ‘a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he 7 ignores the instructions of the prisoner’s treating physician … Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity 8 The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for resolving government 9 officials’ qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

Washington v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Governmental officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established … Under the law of qualified immunity, a governmental officer may commit a constitutional violation but nevertheless be immune from suit if it was not “clearly established,” at the time that he acted, that he was

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

Peoples v. Fischer

898 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 26, 2012

Qualified Immunity Agency officials performing discretionary functions are generally granted qualified immunity and are immune from suit provided that “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … claim. 44 To *625 succeed on their claim for qualified immunity, Bezio and Rock must show that from the “face of the complaint they did not violate a clearly established right of which they should have known.” 45 Defendants

Distiso v. Town of Wolcott

352 F. App'x 478 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 2009

The district court then denied the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, asserting conclusorily that Nicholas’s right to be free from racial discrimination was clearly established, and that a reasonable school official … Therefore, if the facts alleged by the Plaintiff here do not make out violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, then qualified immunity is available. Id. at 816 ; see also Okin v.

Brandon Raub v. Michael Campbell

785 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 29, 2015

(2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … [Campbell’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Ireland v. Tunis

907 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 5, 1995

Alternatively, Defendants contend that they should prevail as a matter of law even if they are entitled only to qualified immunity for their acts, because those acts did not violate any “clearly established rights” of the … The Court reiterated that qualified immunity rests upon “objective legal reasonableness,” and stated that allegedly unlawful official action must be “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at

Tosun Fitil v. Justyn Riley

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2026

What we can review is the denial of qualified immunity on Fitil’s Fourth Amendment claim. … Even though the plaintiff “was shot in the knee with a rubber bullet” from “less than 10 feet away,” we granted qualified immunity because it was not clearly established “as of April 2021 that officers effect a seizure when

Dennis Lee Campbell v. Paul Burt, and John Doe (3), Police Officers

141 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1998

The primary issue before us is whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the seven-day delay before filing the petition and obtaining post-deprivation judicial review violated Campbell’s clearly established procedural … However, “[a]n official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not ‘clearly established.’ ” Campbell, 949 F.Supp. at 1468 (quoting Anderson v.

Vargas-Badillo v. Diaz-Torres

114 F.3d 3 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 30, 1997

The Qualified Immunity Standard A. … of clearly established law, was met.

Estate of Garcia Toribio v. City of Santa Rosa

381 F. Supp. 3d 1179 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 4, 2019

The qualified immunity doctrine shields a government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if the officer's conduct does not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional … See Sheehan , 135 S.Ct. at 1776 (questioning without deciding whether "a controlling circuit precedent could constitute clearly established federal law in these circumstances" for purposes of Section 1983 qualified immunity

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

117 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 17, 2015

Bader are trying to suggest that district courts should, whenever possible, decide qualified immunity on the clearly established prong. … The Supreme Court established the qualified immunity defense in Pierson v.

Pinter v. City of New York

710 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2010

Once we determine whether the right at issue was clearly established for the particular context that the officer faced, the qualified immunity inquiry is complete. … Pinter’s Right Was Clearly Established “For a constitutional right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the ‘contours of the right must be sufficiently

Taylor v. Rogich

45 F. Supp. 3d 223 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 2014

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.... … The Court deter *227 mined that “Brosseau’s actions fell in the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force [and that qualified immunity applied because] cases by no means clearly established] that Brosseau’s conduct

Smith v. Lee

73 F.4th 376 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2023

of clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known