Case law

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

Merriweather v. Zamora

569 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2009

The defendants argue that the district court improperly denied qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right of Merriweather’s and their actions, if not a reasonable application of the … The final prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the defendants acted objectively unreasonably “in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”

Neaves v. Hampton

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jul 1, 2024

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity with respect to Neaves’ constitutional claims. … to juror to conclude that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Toney v. Harrod

372 F. Supp. 3d 1156 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 13, 2019

was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct." 15 Therefore, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, Sullivan is entitled *1165 to immunity unless his alleged actions violated a clearly established right.

Estate of Lee v. City of Spokane

101 Wash. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 2000

Police officers have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages for conduct that “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. … Entitlement to qualified immunity may be established, and was established here, as a matter of law. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs’ own account, Mr.

Vinning-El v. Evans

657 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2011

The remaining subject is whether chaplain Sutton has qualified immunity, which comprises two questions: first whether the plaintiff has a good constitutional claim, and second whether the right in question was “clearly established … Immunity protects public employees who make reasonable errors in applying even clearly established law. See, e.g., Malley v.

Smith v. University of Washington Law School

2 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 1998

In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever deci-sional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other … The third step in the qualified immunity analysis is to consider whether a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under clearly established law.

(PC) Reed v. Flores

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2025

(ECF No. 15-1 at 14-15.) 25 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 26 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that Ninth Circuit 15 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

James Setchfield v. Scott Ronald

109 F.4th 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2024

“To defeat qualified immunity, [the plaintiff] must prove that: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to him, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established … Under these circumstances, it was unreasonable to use more than de minimis force against him.3 Since Setchfield has established his excessive-force claim, we next turn to the clearly established prong of the qualified-immunity

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

Pekrun v. Puente

172 F. Supp. 3d 1039 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 23, 2016

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 would have known … In support of his argument for qualified immunity, Puente cites Gause v.

Maxwell v. MAYOR & ALDER. OF SAVANNAH

226 Ga. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 5, 1997

Despite this finding, however, we conclude that Gellatly was immune from the § 1983 claim in this case. Gellatly’s qualified immunity defense is governed by federal law. Forney v. Purvis, 190 Ga. … For the law to be *708 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

Ajay Gaalla v. Citizens Medical Center, Et

460 F. App'x 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2012

established, it denied the Defendants qualified immunity on those claims.4 The district court also denied official immunity to Dr. … STANDARD OF REVIEW “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

Dehorty v. New Castle County Council

560 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. Delaware · Apr 14, 1983

immunity defense in a section 1983 action. *891 Defendants argue that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the defense of qualified immunity. … The defendants, therefore, bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the qualified immunity defense set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

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).

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

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

Kopec v. Tate

230 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2002

Defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … must be “clearly established.”

Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University

132 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 16, 2015

is that government officials sued in their personal capacities for violations of federal rights are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is equally clear, of course, that a “materially similar” set of facts is not necessary to establish law clearly for qualified immunity purposes. See Hope v.

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