Case law

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.

Hansen v. Meese

675 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 16, 1987

Further, the court held that qualified immunity was inapplicable because the right at issue was clearly established. Id. at 3037-38 . … The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the “clearly established law” test should not be applied at a level of generality that would undermine the balance struck by the qualified immunity doctrine. Id. at 3038-39 .

Rodriguez v. Nazario

719 F. Supp. 52 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 31, 1989

relief; 4 that defendants have failed to establish that they perform discretionary functions which is a requisite for qualified immunity; and that defendants’ actions were violative of clearly established law and therefore … and has not been clearly established on this matter.

Kingsmill v. Szewczak

117 F. Supp. 3d 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2015

Qualiñed Immunity Officer Szewczak argues' that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it was not clearly established oh February 9, 2014, that calling a person over to a patrol car and failing to warn that person … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct did not violate clearly-established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.

Gray v. Baker

399 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

In particular, Baker and Nero argue it was “not ‘clearly established’ statutory law that [they] c[ould] be sued under the FMLA as individuals,” and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity from that claim. … appeal whether the challenged action by the defendant officials [wa]s a violation of federal law at all, clearly established or not.”

Barbara C. Ehrlich v. Town of Glastonbury, Joel White, James Kenny

348 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2003

The Supreme Court’s prescribed inquiry Defendants begin and end their qualified immunity argument with the proposition that the allegedly infringed constitutional right is not “clearly established.” … Ehrlich has not proffered evidence demonstrating the violation of a “clearly-established right[ ] of which an ob *62 jectively reasonable official would have known,” the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and

Wettersten v. Chillicothe City School District Board of Education

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 27, 2022

Kammer, 955 F.3d 520, 540–41 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding parents’ right to make decisions concerning the care and custody of their children without government interference was clearly established). … City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (affirming decision that state statute and regulation excluding children not immunized from school during disease outbreak was constitutional despite parental objection).

Randall R. Bradford v. Mike Huckabee

330 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 5, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in suits against them in their individual capacity as long as their actions do not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, to be upheld in a motion to dismiss only when the immunity can be established on the face of the complaint.

Stonecipher v. Valles

759 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, “a plaintiff must properly allege a deprivation of a constitutional right and must further show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

O'Donnell v. Knott

283 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2017

qualified immunity because the complaint does not plausibly allege that they violated Plaintiff's clearly established First Amendment rights. … In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights. Accordingly, the detectives' qualified immunity defense will be denied, without prejudice. 10 C.

Gardetto v. Mason

854 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jun 7, 1994

immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established rights. … Finally, the Court also finds that this corpus of law was certainly clearly established at the time of the events in question such that the motion for qualified immunity on this claim must also be denied. iii.

Massey v. Banning Unified School District

256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 28, 2003

If a violation has been alleged, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 200-201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … In their motion, Defendants focus their qualified immunity argument on the contention that the right to be free of sexual orientation-based discrimination is not clearly established because there is no “closely analogous

Matthews v. City of New York

889 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2012

Moreover, “ ‘[e]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable … As noted supra, “the qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law; and the clearly established law of excessive force itself hinges on the reasonableness

Donald M. Johnson v. Bob Odom

910 F.2d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1990

An appeal may be taken from a finding against qualified immunity where the issue involved is the purely legal one of “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the … qualified immunities was proper.

Rush v. Perryman

579 F.3d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush’s rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush’s right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

Stella v. Kelley

63 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 23, 1995

Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity limits a plaintiff's damages against state actors "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The meaning of the adjectival phrase "clearly 4 established," as it operates in the qualified immunity arena, has not always been clearly established.

Nelson v. Green

965 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 15, 2013

While the court in Costanich affirmed qualified immunity for a social worker defendant where that constitutional right had not been clearly established, the court put government officials in the Ninth Circuit on notice that … When a government official asserts qualified immunity, the court must determine: (1) whether the facts alleged show that his or her actions violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right asserted was clearly established

Robert Shumate v. City of Adrian, Mich.

44 F.4th 427 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

On appeal, Officer Powers asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the force was not unconstitutionally excessive or, alternatively, that the law violated was not clearly established. … Powers’ use of force amounted to a violation of Shumate’s clearly established rights—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Dodds v. Richardson

614 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

As Justice Thomas explained: In conducting qualified immunity analysis ..., courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiffs allegations as true, the plaintiffs clearly established rights were violated. … For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible

Wishnatsky v. Bergquist

550 N.W.2d 394 · North Dakota Supreme Court · May 29, 1996

The Court summarized the application of qualified immunity in this context: Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields agents Hunter and Jordan from suit for damages if “a reasonable officer could have believed [ … Bryant’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.”