Case law

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

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.

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.

Smith v. City of Madison

364 F. Supp. 3d 656 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 23, 2018

The Mayor is Entitled to Qualified Immunity "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 … Accordingly, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to show a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was "clearly established" at

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Howze v. Virginia Polytechnic

901 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 12, 1995

Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … For qualified immunity purposes, however, the record is sufficient to hold that, even if the speech is ultimately decided to be protected, that right was not clearly established in 1992 and 1993.

Frederick A. Siegert, ph.d. v. H. Melvyn Gilley, ph.d.

895 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1990

The court concluded that “[Gil-ley’s] qualified immunity defense therefore fails,” id., and that Siegert had established a proper basis for a Bivens claim. Id. at 1419. Defendant then filed this appeal. … Instead, to overcome the qualified immunity that ordinarily attaches to government officials performing discretionary functions, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

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.

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.

Elkins v. McKenzie

865 So. 2d 1065 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2003

The first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional (or federal statutory) right. Hare v. … To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality. Anderson 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