Case law

Smith v. Finch

324 F. Supp. 3d 1012 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 2, 2018

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right in question was "clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." … However, qualified immunity will protect an officer from liability for an arrest "if a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [officers

Jared Clinton v. Ryan Garrett

49 F.4th 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 21, 2022

It does not require us to determine whether the defendants violated a “clearly established right” and, as it imposes a higher standard of care, it affords less protection than does qualified immunity. See Baldwin v. … We must still determine whether that right was clearly established.

MacIas v. County of Los Angeles

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2006

violation, the right was not clearly established. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established).

Escalera-Salgado v. United States

911 F.3d 38 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 19, 2018

in Bivens claims by qualified immunity."2 Solis-Alarcón v. … The district court therefore did not err in dismissing Escalera's claim on the clearly-established step of qualified immunity analysis.4 III.

Cook v. Cobb County, Georgia

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 29, 2022

Indeed, qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An arresting officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the violated right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Jones v. Clark

630 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2011

- eral right at issue was clearly established at the time that the alleged violation occurred. … III As we mentioned, Officers Clark and Kaminski are entitled to immunity if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a rea- sonable person would have known.

Hicks v. P.O. Jenkins 8917

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2024

[Dkt. 63 at 4-7.]4 Second, his actions did not violate a clearly established right, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Id. at 8-10.] … This is insufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Kisela v.

Duffie v. Wichita County

990 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2013

immunity analysis and asks whether, nevertheless, qualified immunity is appropriate because the Officer Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable “in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question … As already stated, qualified immunity is a defense available to public officials performing discretionary functions “... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

PALMIERI VS. CLARK CO.

2015 NV 102 · Nevada Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information

Soto v. Bautista

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2023

Clearly Established Law We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … Notwithstanding the prior analysis, Zuniga and Bautista are still “entitled to qualified immunity unless” Soto demonstrated that the right in question was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

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.

SCHROEDER v. DeKALB COUNTY Et Al.

341 Ga. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 14, 2017

Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Lowden v. County of Clare

709 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 25, 2010

Qualified immunity provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The court determined that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable officer in [the defendant’s] position would have known that Carey had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to

Falyn Bruce v. Derek Guernsey

777 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

Qualified immunity is available when a defendant’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- No. 14-1352 13  tional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, even when an officer lacks probable cause, he is still entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer “could have reasonably believed that probable cause existed in light of well- established law.” Id.

Gonzalez-Perez v. Davila

680 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 8, 2009

The defense of qualified immunity protects an official who violated the plaintiffs federally protected right as long as the official did not violate clearly established federal law at the time he acted. Harlow v. … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity defense for a supervisor is satisfied “when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established that

Barnes v. Furman

629 F. App'x 52 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages “if his conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe … Defendants do not dispute that the confiscation of Barnes’s Tsalot-Kob religious head covering was unlawful and instead argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law permitting

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.

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

Belcher v. City of Foley

30 F.3d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1994

Thus, to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity, Mrs. … Belcher’s death no decision had clearly established that Chief Anderson’s actions or inactions constituted deliberate indifference, he is entitled to qualified immunity. 2.