Case law

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.

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.

Francis v. Coughlin

849 F.2d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 20, 1988

Defendants’ memorandum of law devoted nine pages to the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that the rights which plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established in the years 1982-83. … In its only reference to qualified immunity, the court noted in a footnote that a prisoner’s right to have notice of and to comment on charges against him was clearly established prior to 1982, such that qualified immunity

Maxey ex rel. Maxey v. Fulton

890 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

The Court reasoned that a denial of qualified immunity is conclusive because the court is deciding either that (1) the defendant violated clearly established law and is not entitled to immunity, or (2) that if the facts are … Mitchell itself recognizes that there will be times when discovery is proper: Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to

Edward Furnace v. Paul Sullivan

705 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 17, 2013

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (qualified immunity is appropriate when “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). … Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 240 (4th Cir. 2008) (denying qualified immunity to a prison guard because the right to be free from excessive use of pepper spray was clearly established).

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.

Doe, SORB No. 474362 v. Sex Offender Registry Board

94 Mass. App. Ct. 52 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 19, 2018

from a damages claim because the constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated were not "clearly established." … This is because as employees of a State executive agency, Hayden and Myers are immune from suit under § 1983 unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights.

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.

Dickerson v. Mcclellan

101 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1996

Dickerson were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law regarding the knock and announce rule and its exceptions." … because they did not violate Dickerson's clearly established constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

Bodiford v. State of Ala.

854 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 17, 1994

Qualified immunity is available to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, the defendants conclude that a reasonable person would have believed their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law, and, thus, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Columbian Financial Corporation v. Stork

811 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 26, 2016

Thull enjoy qualified immunity on this claim because the alleged conduct would not have violated a clearly established constitutional right. … For qualified immunity, however, the question is whether that constitutional requirement was clearly established.

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

175 N.C. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs properly pled its claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiffs’ allegations, nonetheless, fail to establish any conduct by Haehnel that violated clearly established statutory

Armengau v. Cline

7 F. App'x 336 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2001

qualified immunity on an interlocutory appeal.” … In evaluating claims of qualified immunity under section 1983, we first determine whether a constitutional violation occurred and only then consider *346 whether the right violated was clearly established such that a reasonable

Nolen v. Jackson

102 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right.... … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (holding threshold question in a qualified immunity claim is whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right has occurred);

(PC) Bobadilla v. Knight

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2020

established law and is entitled to qualified immunity. 3 C. … has established a violation of his First Amendment rights, 20 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff’s alleged free speech rights were not 21 clearly established at the time of the May 21, 2017

Carl v. Angelone

883 F. Supp. 1433 · District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 19, 1995

Angelone’s instant motion for summary judgment argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the bfoq exception to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(l), is not clearly established. … Qualified immunity, a hybrid species of affirmative defense and immunity, places the initial burden on the plaintiff to prove that the right allegedly violated was clearly established. 3.

Gericke v. Begin

753 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 23, 2014

In May 2012, the officers filed motions for summary judgment, arguing in pertinent part that they were entitled to qualified immunity on Gericke's First Amendment claim because there was no clearly established right to … Qualified immunity provides government officials with "breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments" by shielding officials from liability for civil damages for actions that do not violate clearly established

Lopera v. Town of Coventry

640 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 20, 2011

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity 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 finding that a right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation is sufficient to warrant a finding of qualified immunity. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 .

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.

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