Case law

Ronald A. Mahers v. Charles Harper Ken Wittry Ronald Welder Paul W. Grossheim

12 F.3d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 1, 1994

Defendants argue that even if the due process violation found by the state court is taken as a given, the right violated was not clearly established, and therefore they are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … In proceeding under Rule 9, defendants acted in an objectively reasonable manner, and they'did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. They are entitled to qualified immunity.

Morrison v. Board of Trustees of Green Tp.

583 F.3d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2009

This right was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002. See id. at 641 . … Violation of Clearly Established Right Officer Celender finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, even if he *408 violated Amanda’s constitutional rights, because it was not clearly established at the time

Reyes v. Fischer

934 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 9, 2019

violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are afforded qualified immunity, and are therefore "shielded from liability for civil damages" when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Gene Flinn v. Elaine Gordon, Dexter Lehtinen

775 F.2d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Once this is established, the official is immune from liability unless the plaintiff can “prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.” Id. … Since Flinn cannot show the loss of any federal right, much less the loss of a “clearly established” right, he has failed to overcome Gordon’s qualified immunity.

Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp. of America v. Kentucky, Finance & Administration Cabinet

403 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · May 10, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … If the law was not clearly established, the defendants may be protected from suit by qualified immunity as they could not have known that their conduct was illegal or unconstitutional.

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

Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

580 N.W.2d 606 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1998

“To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time.” Id. … ” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. ****** [0]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly

Heard v. Bear

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2020

Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.

Kevin O'ROuRke v. Smithsonian Institution Press and the Smithsonian Institution, Docket No. 04-0151-Cv

399 F.3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 16, 2005

O’Rourke pointed out that the Smithsonian was created as an independent establishment of the United States, citing 20 U.S.C. *116 § 41, and that § 1498(b) does not mention establishments, or trust instrumentalities, of the … Prior to 1960, however, the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity from suits for copyright infringement, and the result was, “inequitabl[y],” that government employees — who could not claim sovereign immunity

Mountain Pure v. Cynthia Roberts

814 F.3d 928 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 25, 2016

"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 person would have known … Moreover, Mountain Pure -5- cites no authority showing that the agents violated its clearly established rights as it must to overcome a defense of qualified immunity.

Robinson v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 34 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity from suit must be granted when the law or right allegedly violated is not clearly established. Conner v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 , 1492 (9th Cir. 1990).

McCranie v. Gavinski

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 24, 2024

Defendants provide no legal authority in support of their proposition that clearly established law for qualified immunity must originate from a case at the same procedural posture. … was clearly established”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Sergeant Acuna and Sergeant Gutierrez are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s first claim.

Johnson v. Boreani

946 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Because in most cases it is easier for a § 1983 defendant to establish qualified immunity than to defend against the alleged constitutional violation, and because our remand had expressly left the qualified immunity issue

Africa v. City of Philadelphia

809 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1992

“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’.” Davis v. … “clearly established” law and the information he possessed at that time.

Doctor Awanna Leslie v. Hancock County Board of Education

720 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

had was not clearly established. … “[T]o obtain qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.”

MIMICS, Inc. v. Village of Angel Fire

394 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 3, 2005

Usually, if the law was clearly established at the time of the relevant events, the qualified immunity defense will fail. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982). … Id. at 934. 8 The purpose of requiring the law to be clearly established in qualified immunity determinations is so state officials have fair notice that their conduct is unconstitutional.

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

85 F. Supp. 3d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2015

As a result, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … In granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s RICO and underlying Hobbs Act claims, this Court explained that state actors are entitled to qualified immunity on RICO claims for “conduct that does not violate clearly

Braun v. Maynard

652 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

Previous cases need not be on all fours with the current one to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. See Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 362-63 (4th Cir. 2001). … In the qualified immunity context, these factors counsel against hastily concluding that the law clearly forbade the officers’ conduct.

Krein v. Norris

309 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

not specifically and conclusively ruled on the issue of qualified immunity. … holding that "plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right [and] the right is clearly established."

Swint v. City Of Wadley

51 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

by ... clearly-established law." … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.