Case law

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.

DiLoreto v. Borough of Oaklyn

744 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1990

clearly established right). … As was noted in the discussion of qualified immunity, it was clearly established that a search will be considered a violation of the fourth amendment if it is unreasonable. Bell v.

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

283 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2003

Leonard, holding that a supervisor defendant is shielded by qualified immunity unless; (1) the law violated by the defendant’s subordinate is clearly established and (2) the supervisory liability doctrine under which the … If they were, then McNeill violated clearly established law.

Chipman v. City of Florence

858 F. Supp. 87 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 2, 1994

ANALYSIS It is well-settled that government officials performing discretionary functions generally have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional … The court also stated: “To determine whether qualified immunity protects [the officers] we must inquire: 1) whether [the plaintiff] identified a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) whether a reasonable

Long v. Slaton

508 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2007

, violated no clearly established *584 right. … Montoute is a qualified immunity decision.

Baxter v. Bracey

140 S. Ct. 1862 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 15, 2020

Applying our qualified immunity precedents, the Sixth Cir- cuit held that even if the officers’ conduct violated the Con- stitution, they were not liable because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right. … There likely is no basis for the objective inquiry into clearly established law that our modern cases prescribe.

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.

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.

Hemry v. Ross

62 F.4th 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “(1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Soza v. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Rozek v. Topolnicki

865 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

The court held that defendants Reisdorff and Liddle were entitled to qualified immunity because they were working under To-polnicki’s direction, and that Rozek had not shown they had violated any clearly established constitutional … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Browne v. County of Tehama

213 Cal. App. 4th 704 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2013

such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.’ … The Ordinance is clearly not a ban. 11 Simply put, the Ordinance does not prohibit the cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients.

Davila v. City of New York

139 A.D.3d 890 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2016

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the officers’ actions would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Mullenix

Patrick Neal Nerren v. Livingston Police Department Billy Ray Nelson, Sheriff and Bob Key, and Matthew Parrish, and Robert Alston

86 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 1996

They contend that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. As Nerren has stated a claim under clearly established law, we affirm. … immunity: Under currently applicable law, Nerren has alleged a violation of a clearly established right. *474 2.

Angus v. Mayorkas

District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2022

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to argue that she was more qualified than J.C., the evidence is insufficient to establish pretext because it does not show that Plaintiff clearly was more qualified than J.C. … See Price, 283 F.3d at 723 (stating that to establish pretext, the losing candidate’s qualifications must “leap from the record and cry out to all who would listen that [s]he was vastly—or even clearly—more qualified for

David Wayne Givens v. Jimmy Jones, Terry Morris, Zak A. Ajans, M.D., Frederick Stephenson, Jr., Georgia Slater, and Denny Vasquez

900 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 9, 1990

The standard we must apply in deciding whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is well established. … Ajans on the basis of qualified immunity.

Deary v. Evans

570 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Jun 6, 1983

The Court in Saldana outlined the procedures necessary to establish the defense of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment. … The burden of persuasion then shifts to the plaintiff who must rebut the good faith or qualified immunity defense by showing that the defendant’s conduct violates clearly established law.

Sherika Franklin v. Jason Popovich

111 F.4th 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2024

Thus, the court concluded, Franklin had not shown that Popovich violated clearly established law, and Popovich was entitled to qualified immunity. Franklin appealed. … concluded” that “the circumstances justified the use of deadly violation as well as the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1009–13.

Kelley v. O'Malley

328 F. Supp. 3d 447 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2018

Qualified immunity then attaches "when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. … s clearly established constitutional rights and they are entitled to qualified immunity. 8 Plaintiffs also include in Count I claims against John Does # 1 and # 2 for excessive force.

Wallett v. Anderson

198 F.R.D. 20 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 1, 2000

Qualified Immunity Delaney next asserts that she is immune from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is beyond cavil that qualified immunity shields a defendant “from liability for civil damages insofar as [her] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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.