Case law

Elwell v. Byers

699 F.3d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 14, 2012

The defendants asserted qualified immunity with respect to both claims. … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the official’s actions violated a constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the action. Id.

Board of County Commissioners Ex Rel. Teton County Sheriff's Department v. Bassett

8 P.3d 1079 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2000

prudent police officer in similar cireumstances, refused to include Ortega among those whose fault was compared, and rejected the claim of qualified immunity. … This Court held that the implied immunity defense did not apply to operational functions of the patrolmen, which do not qualify as the basic, discretionary, policy-making type of functions that the defense of qualified immunity

Dorsey v. Barber

517 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

We may only review the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that the “appeal involves the abstract or pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law. … (2) whether that right was clearly established.”

Bistrian v. Levi

299 F. Supp. 3d 686 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2018

established. 107 The failure of either prong will result in the official being entitled to qualified immunity. 108 Here, Plaintiff has not shown that he had a clearly established right to be removed from the SHU within the … was clearly established.

Oliver v. Woods

209 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 17, 2000

Oliver’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined Mr. … Oliver’s clearly established rights. C. Officer Woods’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Mr. Oliver failed to show Officer Woods violated his clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Phillips v. Hust

588 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2009

Second, assuming a constitutional violation, is Hust nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time she acted? … Rather, we proceed directly to ask whether Hust is entitled to qualified immunity. C A state officer is not protected by qualified immunity where he or she has violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Bernstein v. Roberts

405 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2005

The Court held that this principle was clearly established so as to preclude the granting of qualified immunity. … Obviously, the legal principles the Supreme Court held were "clearly established," in 1997 are equally clearly established for the qualified immunity analysis in this case. 5 .

Lytle v. Wondrash

182 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1999

Thus, the constitutional right Lytle asserts in the present case was not clearly established at the time the Appellants allegedly retaliated against her, and as a result they are entitled to qualified immunity. … established’ to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow and its progeny.”

Gray v. Detroit City

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

Officer Gross is Entitled to Qualified Immunity This Court has adopted a three step analysis in determining when qualified immunity applies. Champion v. … Officer Gross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Moyler v. Fannin

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 2023

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a … Fulford, 987 F.3d 299, 311 (4th Cir. 2021) (“The burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense rests on the official asserting the defense.”).

Triad Associates, Inc., D/B/A Guardian Security, Jk Guardian Security Services, Inc., and K & J Management, Inc. v. Renault Robinson

10 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 1993

and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question?”). … The defendant asserted that he should be entitled to qualified immunity, arguing that at the time of his conduct the law failed to clearly establish that a judge’s absolute immunity does not extend to hiring and firing decisions

Mathis v. Bess

763 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their personal capacities from liability for discretionary acts provided their conduct did not violate any “clearly established” federal statutory or … Benjamin, a single unpublished decision of a lower court, “clearly established” the law of this circuit for purposes of qualified immunity. See Hawkins v. Steingut, 829 F.2d 317, 321 (2d Cir.1987).

Evans v. Gordon

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 2024

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … official violated clearly established federal law.).

Moran v. Washington

147 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 2, 1998

established” to defeat Senn’s assertion of qualified immunity. … established to defeat qualified immunity. .

Johnson v. Pearson

316 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 1, 2004

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … If Plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, “the qualified immunity doctrine still provides a defendant officer with immunity from suit.” Jones, 325 F.3d at 526-527 .

Blake v. Wright

179 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

Alternatively, the majority opinion may imply that the district court in Mitchell could not reach the qualified immunity question because the law with respect to Title III was clearly established, not because qualified immunity … We fail to see the logic of providing a defense of qualified immunity to protect public officials from personal liability when they violate constitutional rights that are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity

Edwards v. Alabama Department of Corrections

81 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 14, 2000

Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at *1252 the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart v. … The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part test for evaluating the second qualified-immunity consideration, whether the defendants’ actions violated clearly established , statutory or constitutional law.

Holdridge v. Blank

255 F. Supp. 3d 1088 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 1, 2017

Qualified Immunity Officer Blank asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., ECF No. 78 at 10. … The qualified immunity doctrine “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights-of

Holland Ex Rel. Overdorff v. Harrington

268 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2001

entitled to qualified immunity. … "An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law.”

Archer v. Chisholm

191 F. Supp. 3d 932 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 26, 2016

She is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff plausibly pleads that she violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Qualified immunity—validity of warrant Turning to qualified immunity, again, to overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendants violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly