Case law

Jordan v. Sinsheimer

403 Mass. 586 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 14, 1988

The defendant asserts that at least qualified immunity is available to him because his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … One issue is whether on clearly established principles of law, he could have reasonably believed his acts to be lawful. Breault v. Chairman of the Bd. of Fire Comm’rs of Springfield, 401 Mass. 26 , 32 (1987).

Charles Waters v. B. Madson

921 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 11, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege (1) a violation of his statutory or constitutional rights, and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct … De La Rosa, 852 F.3d at 745-46 (examining arguable reasonable suspicion under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

(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).

Butler v. City of Norman

992 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

official violated the clearly established law. … In Mitchell the Court held: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery ..

Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court

30 Cal. App. 4th 713 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

They dismiss defendants’ argument that the court failed to rule on their qualified immunity defense. … However, the qualified immunity under federal law upon which the defendants rely here does not apply if their actions violated a clearly established *731 statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should

Mumford v. Zieba

788 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1992

Finally, Judge Zieba argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s damages claims because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be discharged based on his political affiliations. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his motion for summary judgment, Judge Zieba contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s claim for damages because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be terminated

Sorano v. Taggart

642 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 2009

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Qualified Immunity — The Merits “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Guan v. City of New York

37 F.4th 797 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Qualified Immunity Even where actual probable cause does not exist, police officers may be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim if their actions did not violate "clearly established … Accordingly, we hold that Boyle and Larasaavedra are protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established when they arrested Guan in 2017 that they had to have probable cause to arrest her for an emergency

Hall v. Stewart

297 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 16, 2004

The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for evaluating claims of qualified immunity. … We find it does not ... ”). 3 Because no “offensiveness to others” element was clearly established under Fla. Stat. § 796.07 at the time of the arrests, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Harrill v. Blount County

55 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 1995

A violation of a clearly established state law can only surmount qualified immunity if it embodies the federal right that is the basis of the § 1983 action. Davis v. … Thus, the defendants did not violate the plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights, and therefore they have qualified immunity from plaintiffs § 1983 claims.

Santana v. Calderon

342 F.3d 18 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 26, 2003

It is important for the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis to note that Quiles was decided on November 7, 2001, after Santana's dismissal from her job in this case. … the Puerto Rico Constitution, is to focus on the second step of the qualified immunity analysis -- the clearly established question

Ross v. Early

899 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2012

Thus, if the right was not clearly established, for example, Officer Early would be entitled to qualified immunity without an assessment of the first prong. … Determination of a violation of constitutional rights is no longer a predicate for assessing qualified immunity; a court may first address whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

Moran v. Washington

147 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 2, 1998

established” to defeat Senn’s assertion of qualified immunity. … established to defeat qualified immunity. .

Early v. Crockett

436 S.W.3d 141 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2014

“Under the standard of qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v. … “The more critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was ‘objectively legally reasonable’ for the prison officials to believe that [their] conduct did not violate the inmate’s clearly established Eighth

Ann Robinette Eric Robinette v. William Jones Richard Fentiman Tim Gassen Joshua Landis Merritt M. Beck, III City of Centralia, Missouri

476 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2007

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends upon the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s actions “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ ” at the time of the … Robi-nette, the constitutional right was not clearly established. 8 The warrant to arrest Ms.

Sandoval v. County of Sonoma

72 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2014

“[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093 , 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). … A Court may grant “qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v.

Shepard v. Hansford County

110 F. Supp. 3d 696 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 22, 2015

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is a doctrine designed to protect government officials sued in their individual capacity from liability for civil damages, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … If a defendant successfully establishes the qualified immunity defense, he or she is completely immune from suit. See id.

Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County

916 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2019

alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ and second, ‘whether the right was clearly established.’” … The majority has correctly concluded that Officer Hinds is entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established law.

Allah v. Goord

405 F. Supp. 2d 265 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 13, 2005

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability as long as “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … However, if a violation is proven, “the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 27 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Goodman v. Town of Golden Beach

988 F. Supp. 1450 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 8, 1997

of that clearly-established law. … Goodman was unnecessary and excessive, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that the amount of force used was unlawful.