Case law

Thomas L. Feathers Kathleen Feathers v. William Aey J.P. Donohue, City of Akron

319 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2003

The district court refused to grant the officers qualified immunity, ruling that the officers violated Thomas Feathers’s (“Feathers”) clearly established rights to *846 be free from an unreasonable seizure and to be free … Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Mattox v.

Rodriguez v. Phillips

66 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1995

Moreover, defendants' actions at that time must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law; otherwise, those actors are entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when the qualified immunity defense is based on a showing that an asserted right was not clearly established since the inquiry as to whether a right was or was not clearly established

Rosenfeld v. Clark

586 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 11, 1984

We are aware of no clearly established due process rights which required the Board to act more quickly than it did, no decision which clearly states that a sixty day or even a ninety day appeal process in a situation such … Where there has been no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and plaintiffs claim for damages must be dismissed.

United States v. Allebach

526 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2008

Motion to Suppress Allebach moved to suppress the fruits of the search of his residence, arguing that the trash contents were insufficient to establish probable cause. … We find the district court did not clearly err in determining Allebach’s possession of crack cocaine was part of the same course of conduct as his possession with intent to manufacture crack cocaine.

Browne v. County of Tehama

213 Cal. App. 4th 704 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2013

such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.’ … The Ordinance is clearly not a ban. 11 Simply put, the Ordinance does not prohibit the cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients.

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper

320 P.3d 830 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 19, 2012

Qualified immunity is based upon a conception that "where [a public] official's duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action … Federal qualified immunity is therefore immunity from suit, rather than merely a defense to liability. Id.

Brandon v. Lotter

976 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 2, 1997

did not violate clearly established law. … This being the case, Laux did not violate clearly established law when he failed to immediately arrest Lotter and Nissen or take some other related action, and he is entitled to qualified immunity as a result.

Zaher Zahrey v. Martin E. Coffey

221 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 20, 2000

not clearly established in 1996. … Anderson instructs, however, that for a right to be clearly established for purposes of a qualified immunity defense, the precise conduct at issue need not previously have been ruled unlawful.

DiLoreto v. Borough of Oaklyn

744 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1990

clearly established right). … As was noted in the discussion of qualified immunity, it was clearly established that a search will be considered a violation of the fourth amendment if it is unreasonable. Bell v.

Flores v. City of Palacios

270 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 30, 2003

The Court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. If not, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Flores has alleged violations of clearly established law, the Court moves to the next step in the qualified immunity analysis: judging the reasonableness of the alleged behavior. See Hayter, 154 F.3d at 274 .

Goodman v. Town of Golden Beach

988 F. Supp. 1450 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 8, 1997

of that clearly-established law. … Goodman was unnecessary and excessive, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that the amount of force used was unlawful.

Wertenbroch v. Hardeman

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2026

Typically, qualified immunity hinges on “whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established.’” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996) (citation omitted). … But the magistrate judge never analyzed whether Plaintiffs rights were clearly established. Nor did he affirmatively conclude that he was denying qualified immunity to Hardeman.

Hunter v. Illinois Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2023

Meeks is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s misconduct).

Atwater v. Tucker

343 Ga. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 24, 2017

The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant's conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law[; in … App. 165 , 167 (1), 480 S.E.2d 217 (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted). *306 For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

329 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Jensen v. Jessamy

242 N.C. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2015

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … "In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Gregory Samples v. Harris County

900 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2018

Our legal inquiry into the availability of qualified immunity fits into a two-step framework. … marshal caselaw asserting to resolve the question of clearly established law.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 7, 1993

The court framed the qualified immunity issue as being "whether minor school children suspected of being victims of child abuse had, [at the relevant time] a clearly established right to be free from questioning and visual … The court found no such clearly established right, and found, therefore that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and were therefore not liable.

Raspardo v. Carlone

770 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2014

[and] [t]he second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … established rights,” precluding a grant of qualified immunity. 85 F.3d at 67 .

Alonzo Johnson v. Claude Finn

665 F.3d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 2011

FINN 20857 sonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). … [2] The only remaining question is whether the federal law that the Court of Appeal failed to apply reasonably was clearly established by the Supreme Court at the time of the Court of Appeal’s decision, as AEDPA requires