Case law

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. Meeks

98 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 1996

Suffice that the first appeal established the qualified immunity of the individual police officers from all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that “there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to

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

Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff v. Hays County, Texas and Paul Hastings, Sheriff, in His Individual and Official Capacity

154 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1998

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time the challenged action occurred, the federal law proscribing it was clearly established not only as an abstract matter but also in a more particularized sense … In order to overcome Hastings’s claim of qualified immunity, Stefanoff must specifically allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v.

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.

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.

Conner v. Department of Commerce

443 P.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals of Utah · May 23, 2019

Department of Commerce those terms when discussing immunity conferred by the GIA. In this context, “qualified immunity” simply means “immunity subject to exceptions,” Hansen v. … ¶40 Conner also argues that the Defendants waived the governmental immunity defense when they agreed to withdraw (…continued) discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

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.”).

Caldwell v. Brogden

678 So. 2d 1148 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 10, 1996

A qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: first, whether the defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, and second, whether their actions violated clearly established law. … The burden then shifted to Caldwell to prove that they violated clearly established law, a burden that she failed to meet.

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

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.

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.

Bernstein v. State

411 N.J. Super. 316 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2010

[,]" and if so, "whether the right was clearly established." … In determining whether a right has been clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear so that a "reasonably competent officer" would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right.

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.

Michael Kent v. County of Oakland

810 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2016

The district court found that the deputies’ use of the taser was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established law, and it denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified and governmental immunity … Rather, “a defendant denied qualified immunity may appeal ... *390 [only] if the issue on appeal is whether the plaintiffs, facts, taken at their best, show that the defendant violated clearly established law.”