Case law

Herbert Whitlock v. Charles Bruegge

682 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2012

Patchman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), or in the alterna- tive, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … An official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Gary T. Mitchell v. Bernie C. Thompson

18 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1994

Analysis The issue here presented is one which we are all too familiar — whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a civil suit because the law was not clearly established at the time of his alleged … Under the prevailing precedent, unless the law is clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Paul Romero v. Damon Fay, Bob Stover, Chief of Police, and Albuquerque, City of John Doe, Albuquerque Police Officers

45 F.3d 1472 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

In his response, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had violated clearly established law of which a reasonable police officer would have known. … Specifically, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs claims because Plaintiff failed to show that: (1) Defendants arrested Plaintiff without probable cause; (2) clearly established law

Looney v. Black

702 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

To determine whether Black is entitled to qualified immunity as to Looney’s procedural due process claim, we must determine also whether the constitutionally protected property right was “clearly established.” 2 Reichle, … To defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, an employee’s constitutional right to free speech must also be “clearly established” under the law. Reichle, 132 S.Ct. at 2093 .

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection v. Drema Dotson

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 16, 2021

The circuit court stated that “[i]f Plaintiffs can prove their case, the WV DEP’s enforcement actions violated clearly established law and qualified immunity would not apply. … immunity pursuant to our well-established law.

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).

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

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.”

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.”