Case law

Harmon v. Dallas County

248 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2017

immunity (Doc. 26) and the order denying that motion (Doc. 29) and concludes that nature of the challenged conduct was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. … immunity because, at *823 the time Howell was fired, it was not clearly established whether his involvement in the FBI investigation was protected under the First Amendment.”

Redwood v. Lierman

331 Ill. App. 3d 1073 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … clearly established at the time the official acted.

Ramon A. Mercado v. City of Orlando

407 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 2005

Whether Padilla Violated Clearly Established Law. … Even though Padilla violated Mercado’s constitutional rights, he could still be afforded qualified immunity provided that Mercado’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

567 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2009

matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … to determine whether it presents one of those occasions in which the rights are clearly established.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

79 F.4th 455 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2023

A panel of this court affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to qualified immunity, concluding “that there was a violation of clearly established law if the jury resolves the factual disputes … “Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. at 423 (citing Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

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.

Liberian Community Association v. Lamont

970 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 14, 2020

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … “[W]e have repeatedly held[] that a state statute does not serve as ‘clearly established law’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” Tooly v. Schwaller, 919 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2019).

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 10, 2002

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

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.

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.

David v. Mosley

915 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 16, 1996

Mosley’s Claim Of Qualified Immunity: Counts I, II And IY Mosley seeks summary judgment on Counts I, II and IV, on the theory that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 8 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law.

Edward Furnace v. Paul Sullivan

705 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 17, 2013

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (qualified immunity is appropriate when “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). … Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 240 (4th Cir. 2008) (denying qualified immunity to a prison guard because the right to be free from excessive use of pepper spray was clearly established).

Trafton v. City of Woodbury

799 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2011

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. 12 Montanez, 603 F.3d at 250 . … See id. at 823 (finding that because the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not clearly established, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, without having to answer the question of whether the officers violated

Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati

414 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the facts alleged fail to establish a constitutional violation, then the inquiry ends and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

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.

Monetti v. City of Seattle

875 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity Analysis Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil damages for the performance of their discretionary functions. … Even if the constitutional rights of the plaintiff were violated, unless the right is clearly established, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Clark v. Ware

873 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Both Johnson and Ware raise the issue of qualified immunity. … immunity was still appropriate, however, because the law was not clearly established)).

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.

Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama

121 F.3d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights … With regard to the excessive force claim, the magistrate judge concluded that Estress and Wright were not entitled to qualified immunity since "on February 11, 1994, the law was clearly established that use of excessive

Gericke v. Begin

753 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 23, 2014

In May 2012, the officers filed motions for summary judgment, arguing in pertinent part that they were entitled to qualified immunity on Gericke's First Amendment claim because there was no clearly established right to … Qualified immunity provides government officials with "breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments" by shielding officials from liability for civil damages for actions that do not violate clearly established