Case law

J.P. v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2021

See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that 2 qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S. … City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 12 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]ur qualified immunity determination with respect to Officer Brice rests 13 solely on the ‘clearly established’ law prong; we do not reach the question of whether

Lockridge v. Board Of Trustees, Of The University Of Arkansas

315 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. 3 On appeal, Dr. Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. … This court has broadly considered what constitutes "clearly established law" for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. Sexton v. Martin, 210 F.3d 905 , 909 (8th Cir.2000); Boswell v.

Ryan Bonivert v. City of Clarkston

883 F.3d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 2018

Alternatively, the officers claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly 14 BONIVERT V. … The constitutional right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. B.

James Stickley v. Karl Byrd

703 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … -3- clearly established when the alleged misconduct occurred.” Williams v. Herron, 687 F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir. 2012).

Edwards v. Department of Transportation

66 Wash. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 22, 1992

Qualified Immunity. … On the other hand, if the law was clearly established and the conduct of the official is violative of an individual's statutory or constitutional rights the immunity defense should fail. Harlow v.

Siggers v. Alex

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 24, 2021

Qualified Immunity The parties dispute Alex’s entitlement to qualified immunity. … Because the right was clearly established by 1984, Alex is entitled to qualified immunity only if the facts—taken in the light most favorable to Siggers—show that Alex’s conduct did not violate Brady.

Pohto v. Leiser

738 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 5, 1990

DEFENDANT LEISER’S MOTION ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY GROUNDS “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability when the acts complained of violate no clearly established … In light of this Court’s aforementioned analysis of qualified immunity, this Court recognizes that, similar to Defendant Leiser, these board members violated no clearly established constitutional law.

Hall v. Sutton

581 F. App'x 580 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 5, 2014

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Pearson v. … Courts may address the two prongs of qualified immunity in either order. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Demoret v. Zegarelli

451 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2006

I Qualified Immunity 24 Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary duties "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established law.

Bey v. Tennessee Department of Correction

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 28, 2020

“An answer of ‘yes’ to both questions defeats qualified immunity, while an answer of ‘no’ to either question results in a grant of qualified immunity.” Haley v. Elsmere Police Dep’t, 452 F. … Despite the factual similarities to Plaintiff’s case, the law was not clearly established under the First Amendment.

Hendricks v. New Albany Police Department

749 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *870 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The applicability of qualified immunity is determined by a two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

James v. Bryant, Jr. v. United States Treasury Department, Secret Service, and Jeff Jordan Brian v. Hunter

903 F.2d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 1990

Racansky, 887 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1989) (reversing district court’s denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law), Merriman v. … 5 We conclude that the law was not clearly established.

Ayeni Ex Rel. Ayeni v. CBS Inc.

848 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 7, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Agent Mottola. … Qualified Immunity of CBS and Jor-gensen. Both CBS and Jorgensen claim qualified immunity.

Petta v. Rivera

143 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

Regarding the applicability of qualified immunity, we merely observed that “[u]se of excessive force in making an arrest violates clearly established rights, and the doctrine of qualified immunity therefore does not shield … Once an officer uses objectively unreasonable force to effect an arrest, he loses his qualified immunity, whether the other elements of an excessive force claim are clearly established or not.

Achterhof v. Selvaggio

757 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 27, 1991

In searching for clearly established constitutional rights for qualified immunity purposes, a district court ... must find binding precedent by the Supreme Court, its court of appeals or itself. … In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law.

Walker v. Jackson

952 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 8, 2013

Second, they argue that they have qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the ■ time of their alleged violation. … The case law addressing supervisory liability is clearly established, and Sergeant Horan has not advanced any argument in support of qualified immunity. He is not entitled to dismissal of Count Y. v.

Manhattan Beach Police Officers Association, Inc. v. City of Manhattan Beach David J. Thompson Harry L. Kuhlmeyer, Jr.

881 F.2d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 8, 1989

The only issue before us, however, in reviewing the denial of defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, is whether the plaintiffs have alleged the violation of norms that were clearly established at the time of the challenged … The Supreme Court has stated that state and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Wilson v. Wright

998 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1998

Prison officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”' … Thus, in determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Burbank v. Davis

227 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 2002

The second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the First Circuit’s three-part qualified immunity standard the “clearly established” element has two prongs: one, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and, two, whether a reasonable

MCCRIMMON v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because settled law does not clearly establish that four instances of the opening of legal mail over a twenty-one-month period amounts to a pattern or practice … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.