Case law

Stamm v. Cnty. of Cheyenne

326 F. Supp. 3d 832 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jun 11, 2018

12 because there was no clearly established law to alert the officers that their allegedly unlawful searches would deprive Plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment rights. 13 "To avoid qualified immunity, the asserted rights … For purposes of analyzing the individual Defendants' qualified immunity defense, the court finds this right to confidentiality was clearly established at the time of their alleged misconduct.

St. Hilaire v. City of Laconia

885 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 31, 1995

Accordingly, an officer is entitled to claim qualified immunity in a police misconduct case even if he acted unreasonably unless the law under which the officer’s conduct is deemed unreasonable was clearly established when … Thus, neither Gutierrez nor Garner provide clearly established law applicable to the circumstances in this case.

Toby J. Sutton v. Patricia Bailey

702 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity “depends upon the objective reasonableness of [the alleged misconduct] as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Schleck, 939 F.2d at 641(quotations omitted).

Facey v. Dickhaut

892 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2012

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

Miles v. Rich

576 F. App'x 394 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from civil liability for damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights … The test for qualified immunity is twofold: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;” and (2) “whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light

Wallace v. Jackson

667 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 28, 2009

On the other hand, if the law was not clearly established at the time of the offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ; Stewart v. … was clearly established at the time.

Alford v. Haner

333 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and had probable cause for the arrest. … The first question under the two-part inquiry for determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity is whether the “law governing the official’s conduct [was] clearly established.” Act-Up!/Portland v.

Lee v. Brown

232 N.J. 114 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 2018

The panel held that they were entitled only to qualified immunity. … The TCA effectuates the Legislature's intent to establish immunity for government action as the rule and liability as the exception.

Edward Shaw v. City of Selma

884 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Instead of clearly establishing the law against Williams, binding precedent clearly establishes it in his favor. See Singletary v.

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

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.

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a "clearly established" constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: " '[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means … Because "it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims" (Ruffino v.

Brown v. Benefield

757 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 29, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit recognizes three ways that a right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes the constitutional right, (2) a broad statement … If this is not clearly established, then the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Marlowe v. LeBlanc

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

The first question is (a) whether Stewart violated a clearly established right. … See, e.g., Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining qualified immunity applies “unless,” among other things, the defendant violated a “right [that] was clearly established at the time of the challenged

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.

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.”

Bruce Patrick Samsara v. Sergeant Dale Squires, in His Official Capacity and Individually, and Sergeant Mark Kukuzke, in His Official Capacity and Individually, and City of Fairfield, and Fairfield Police Department

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Feb 10, 2016

Qualified immunity operates to immunize police officers from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” and in … Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206.

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.”

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 .

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.