Case law

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

James Spann v. George Lombardi

65 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2023

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment unless a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to show that the official violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … The officials argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Spann’s due process claim, because Spann had no clearly established liberty interest in avoiding assignment to administrative segregation.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Uche Mordi v. Todd Zeigler

770 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2014

doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not vio- late clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights … There is no clearly established law that the three Offic- ers before us violated, and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

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.

Robin Thompson v. James"Clint" Murray

800 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 2015

clearly established. … -6-  Murray is entitled to qualified immunity unless the above-described facts demonstrate that he violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of