Case law

Victor Perez v. James Cox

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2019

The Clearly Established Right The second part of the qualified immunity test requires that the constitutional right that has been violated was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity analysis.3 And at prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, the majority points to no authority clearly establishing that the Use of Force Regulation actually promulgated by the Nevada Department of

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

Piper Partridge v. City of Benton, Arkansas

929 F.3d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2019

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome qualified immunity at the pleadings 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 time

Douglas Stalley v. Lake CI Warden

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2024

Because this is a qualified immunity case, the defendants don’t have to show that the law is clearly established that they did not act with deliberate indifference. … For all of these reasons, Brown is clearly distinguishable and cannot be used to establish that there was deliberate indifference here, much less that it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes

Cruz v. Cervantez

96 F.4th 806 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2024

As for the second prong, “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 … Jury Instructions add an “objective unreasonableness” element into the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, they do not accurately reflect the law.

Garcia v. Dutchess County

43 F. Supp. 3d 281 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 21, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” See id. at 1866 . … to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Bell v. City of Cleveland

548 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2008

In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity. … and 2) that the right violated was clearly established.

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.

County of Adams v. Hibbard

20 Brief Times Rptr. 952 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 17, 1996

The qualified immunity defense should fail if the law was clearly established because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his [or her] conduct.” … called for the destruction of Garrison’s residence because, in their view, avoiding clearly established procedures would be cheaper.

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.

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.

Baptiste v. J.C. Penney Company

147 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory … Unless the plaintiff demonstrates both that the defendant’s conduct violated a federal right and the right was clearly established, the defendant must be granted qualified immunity.

Craig v. Martin

26 F.4th 699 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 15, 2022

IV At the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether Martin’s use of force “violated clearly established statutory or 9 Case: 19-10013 … conduct violated clearly established law is Darden v.

Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged School District

239 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

To be sure, the Supreme Court has counseled that for qualified immunity to be inoperative, the right in question cannot be too abstract but rather must be "'clearly established' in a more particularized, and hence a more … " qualified immunity issue.

Paul Tarashuk v. Jamie Givens

53 F.4th 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 8, 2022

of material fact barred a ruling on qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. … Appellants also argued, in the alternative, that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the particular right allegedly violated was not clearly established.

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.

Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis

943 F.3d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 2019

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity applies either where there was no constitutional violation or where the constitutional violation was not clearly established. See id.

Staats v. Brown

991 P.2d 615 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review Claims of qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 must fail if the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the act. Harlow v. … Consequently, he is qualifiedly immune for claims under state law. The test for qualified immunity under federal law is an objective one, measured by reference to clearly established law. See Harlow v.

Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho

31 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity gives the Officers qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Affiliated Capital Corporation, Etc. v. City of Houston, Gulf Coast Cable Television and James J. McConn

735 F.2d 1555 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 17, 1984

Since we find that McConn is entitled to qualified immunity we need not reach the question of his absolute immunity. … The Mayor is absolved of liability only because applying the Harlow immunity standard he did not, as a matter of law, violate a clearly established law.