Case law

Sarah Watkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

102 F.4th 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff “must plead facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the

Coming Up, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

857 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 1994

First, plaintiffs urge the Court *714 to only consider the defense of qualified immunity with reference to “clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Thus the availability of qualified immunity depends upon the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

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).

J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Nation

61 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 14, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualiñed Immunity Analysis.

Charlie Wade v. Thomas Hegner

804 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 20, 1986

One of the defendants, Thomas Hegner, 1 also argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendant claims that the trial court erred three ways when it rejected his defense of qualified immunity.

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

Elyese Anderson v. Michael Waddle

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity: General Principles “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also an immunity from suit. Id.

Anaya Serbia v. Lausell

646 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 11, 1986

The Supreme Court in Davis stated that: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Because the “clearly established” test has not been met the defendants met the requirements of qualified immunity and are therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for money damages.

Haavisto v. Perpich

498 N.W.2d 746 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 9, 1993

immunity grounds if they can show plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from the “cruel and unusual” conditions was not clearly established during the time he was incarcerated); Bogard, 586 F.2d at 409 (problem of … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 674-75.

Goolsby v. Dist. of Columbia

317 F. Supp. 3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 2018

The Court will once more exercise its discretion to begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether any constitutional violation here was clearly established. … False Arrest Beginning with the false arrest claims, the Court will again start with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether any violation by the Dispatchers was clearly established.

Visser v. Magnarelli

542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

Fitzgerald, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).

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 .

State v. W.S.B.

453 N.J. Super. 206 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2018

The defendant bears that burden of establishing the immunity by a preponderance *233 of the evidence. … "[I]t is only when the facts known to the prosecutor clearly indicate or clearly establish the appropriateness of an instruction that the duty of the prosecution arises."

Maropulos v. County of Los Angeles

560 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 24, 2009

established due process right. … established right.

Dunn v. McFeeley

127 N.M. 513 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1999

The issue on appeal with respect to § 1983 is whether the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their alleged misconduct had not been “clearly established” in 1994 to be contrary to … Such a person, however, is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless at the time of the alleged misconduct it was “clearly established” that the misconduct violated federal law. See Yount v.

John Steven Thomas Olinger v. Dennis J. Larson City of Sioux of South Dakota Falls Terry Satterlee

134 F.3d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 1998

The district court dismissed Olinger’s entire action based upon a finding of qualified immunity for the arresting and supervising officers. Olinger timely appealed. We affirm. I. … The district court initially entered an order granting in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.

Francisco Carrillo, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles

798 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

The officers filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, arguing it was not clearly established in 1984 that they were bound by Brady’s disclosure requirements. … Ditsch moved for summary judgment, arguing he was entitled to qualified immunity on Carrillo’s Brady claim because it was not clearly established in 1991 that Brady 16 CARRILLO V. CTY.

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.

Alberts v. Willis

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … For these reasons, qualified immunity is denied on this claim. IV.

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

13 P.3d 631 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken." … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers' actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.