Case law

Jacqueline Abel, Cross-Appellants v. Harold Miller, Cross-Appellees

824 F.2d 1522 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1987

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district judge stated: “I have thrown it out.” Id. at 1645. “I think there is a clearly established right ... [w]ith respect to all of the claims.” Id. at 1646. … We recently explained: [The Harlow qualified immunity] test would have little bite if a right “clearly established” at any level of generality could survive it.

Hart v. City of Jersey City

308 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1998

The trial judge was correct to conclude that plaintiff had made no prima facie showing that a clearly established right was impinged. … It is clear also that the issue of qualified immunity was a fit subject for disposition in the pre-trial phase of the suit.

Perry v. Greanias

95 S.W.3d 683 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Dec 27, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

Fowler v. Nicholas

522 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1981

Thus, the court in Woods has included in the defense of qualified immunity the duty to know clearly settled rights. … Therefore, the qualified-immunity defense is irrelevant to this claim.

Shechter v. Comptroller of City of New York

79 F.3d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 1996

Accordingly, defendants-appellants' pleading is insufficient to establish their qualified immunity defense. 21 Because defendants-appellants' qualified immunity defense fails with respect to the scope of authority issue, … court's ruling on the issue of qualified immunity must be affirmed for the reasons previously stated, we will not proceed to a definitive resolution of the "clearly established right" issue at this juncture.

In Re: Montgomery County

215 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2000

clearly established right which the Appellants violated and therefore denied them the protection of qualified immunity." … Holding as we do that Wright has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, we must also hold that the Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. IV.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … 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. Id. ; Robinson v.

Marcus Mote v. Debra Walthall

902 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

immunity as a defense.” 3 The only pure legal question we may answer at the qualified immunity stage is “whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” 4 … to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and we confine our analysis accordingly. 5 Kinney, 367 F.3d at 347 (quoting Wagner v.

Armstrong v. Daily

786 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 11, 2015

In holding that the complaint alleges a violation of clearly established constitutional law, we express no opinion on the propriety of qualified immunity at a later stage of litigation. E. … The qualified immunity defense focuses instead on whether the official defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Kandi Torres, Keisha Collins, and Oliver Bell v. Michael A. McCann

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 9, 2016

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory … In summary, McCann has failed to carry his burden to create an issue of material fact as to whether the officials’ conduct violated any clearly established constitutional rights with regard to his First Amendment and retaliation

David M. Mumford v. Joseph Zieba, Judge, in His Official and Individual Capacities Lorain County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division

4 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 1993

Moreover, Judge Zieba argued that he was protected from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established on January 3, 1989 that a chief referee of a domestic relations … Steingut, 829 F.2d 317 (2d Cir.1987), granted state officials qualified immunity when they refused to reappoint a plaintiff to the position of workers’ compensation referee because federal law was not clearly established

Williams v. Miniard

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 27, 2023

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the rights to be free from unduly tight restraints and from gratuitous violence when already restrained is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.”); Kostrzewa v.

James v. Rowlands

606 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 2010

We conclude that, even if such rights existed, they were not clearly established. We therefore affirm the grant of qualified immunity on these two claims. … We conclude, however, that James’s right to this information was not clearly established and that the offi- cials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Curtis Arnold v. Patrick Jones C/o Blythe C/o Creeden C/o Scheers C/o Edwards C/o Whitson Lt. Olson

891 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 19, 1990

However, prison officials are generally immune from suit on the basis of qualified good faith immunity unless “their conduct ... violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The existence of a clearly established right, however, does not end our inquiry into whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Taft v. Vines

70 F.3d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 16, 1995

Under that analysis, we found that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity in that case because: (1) the right not to be arrested without probable cause was clearly established; and (2) a reasonably competent … Under the first two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis, it is plain that the specific right in question — the right not to be stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion — was indeed clearly established at the

Cameron Lewis v. Kevin Caraballo

98 F.4th 521 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

We now turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, “whether the [constitutional or statutory] violation was of a ‘clearly established’ right.” Valladares v. … established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity.’”)

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

802 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2015

Clearly established law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we ask whether it was clearly established in October 2010 that using deadly force against a person in circumstances like those here … established law, and Officer Carson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus

149 F. Supp. 3d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2016

The defense 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 … Based on the review of the cases above, the court finds *1165 that it was clearly established, and thus, qualified immunity does not shield Gelhaus from liability.

Smith v. Schwarzenegger

137 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law.

Kristin Hart v. City of Redwood City

99 F.4th 543 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2024

Moreover, even if Officer Gomez’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct did not violate clearly established law. … To deny qualified immunity, not only must a constitutional right be violated, but that right must be “clearly established” at the time. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 62–63.