Case law

Leach v. New Mexico Junior College

132 N.M. 106 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2002

Second, we determine whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. … Defendants have therefore failed to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity.

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.

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

Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

634 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2011

This involves two questions: “(1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendant violated a con- stitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established … Whether a Violated Right Was Clearly Established The second inquiry, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, is whether the constitutional standards at issue were clearly established at the time the alleged violation oc- curred.

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Engle v. Townsley

49 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A reasonable official would have known that firing Engle in such circumstances would violate her clearly established first amendment rights.

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

Thompson v. Spikes

663 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 22, 1987

to trial, and that entitlement to qualified immunity turns on "the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … been violated are all “clearly established.”

Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips

878 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

Whether that Right was Clearly Established Even if Officer Phillips violated Latits’s constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation—June … Thus, this case fails to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine. III.

Jerome Berry v. Robb Sherman Roger Rutledge Susan Embree James J. Burgess Richard Fongemie, Sgt.

365 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 22, 2004

However, when an official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known, qualified immunity does not prevent suit by the injured party. … The more critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was “objectively legally reasonable” for the prison officials to believe that his conduct did not violate the inmate’s clearly established Eighth Amendment

McKay v. City of Hayward

949 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2013

In the absence of clearly established law, Officers Cox, Purnell, and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. … Parks, 383 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity to officers who failed to intervene where law clearly established use of force was excessive).

Robert Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati

595 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

Page 7 Kennedy failed to show that his clearly established rights were violated. … alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”).

Berrios-Cintron v. Cordero

976 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 27, 1997

Whether qualified immunity will protect an official from being held personally liable will depend on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Cohalan in further analysis of the qualified immunity issue.

McAdoo v. Texas

565 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 2005

“A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action, provided the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question.” Id.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2002

However, district employees enjoy a qualified immunity from such liability unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Fifield v. Eaton

669 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 20, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their performance of their discretionary duties does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that it would not violate clearly established rights.

Kies v. City of Aurora

149 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2001

The Seventh Circuit has noted in the context of qualified immunity that if the plaintiffs’ initial pleadings themselves, taken as true, fail to adequately allege the violation of any clearly established right, dismissal for … The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Aaron Salter v. City of Detroit, Mich.

133 F.4th 527 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2025

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights … Clearly Established Law on Withholding Material Evidence Even if he violated Salter’s rights under Brady, Detective Olsen contends that he is still entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time, it was not clearly

R. Scott Sexton v. Ronald Martin

210 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 19, 2000

established for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard." … In Martin's supplementary motion for summary judgment, Martin argues in the qualified immunity portion of this brief that he "is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that he could be guilty

Corcoran v. Fletcher

160 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 26, 2001

Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, then, “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … Clearly Established Law “[W]hether the law was clearly established ... is a pure question of law for the court to decide.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir.1994).