Case law

Shimomura v. Carlson

17 F. Supp. 3d 1120 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 14, 2014

Qualified Immunity. … Shimomura has met the first prong of the qualified immunity test by establishing that no probable cause existed to support the arrest. 2. Clearly Established Right.

Shields v. Shetler

682 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 29, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned conduct

Robert Aaron Peterson v. Officer Michael Kopp

754 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 11, 2014

Government officials, including police officers, are entitled to qualified immunity, shielding them from liability, “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … We analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right”; and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Mario Cavin v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

927 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2019

Qualified immunity protects those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … (2) If so, was that right clearly established?

Domenech v. City of New York

927 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are immune from liability for civil damages if they establish either that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … Where reasonably competent officials could disagree as to whether the conduct at issue would violate clearly established rights, the immunity defense is available. Malley v.

Rodriguez v. Swartz

111 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 9, 2015

Should this Court hold that J.A. was protected by either or both Amendments, Swartz asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because J.A.’s rights pursuant to the Fourth or Fifth Amendments were not clearly established … Further, the Court finds that J.A.’s rights were clearly established when Swartz seized him such that Swartz is not entitled to assert qualified immunity.

Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa

754 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity...................................................1028 1. Clearly established right...........................................1029 2. … qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time and that the officer’s conduct violated that right), the proper question is whether the defendants have

Saffell v. Crews

183 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 1999

That clearly established right must be one established in a particularized sense. This requires more than a general violation of the Fourth Amendment. … In the present case, Crews is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have rationally believed that the strip search was not unlawful in light of clearly established law and the information she possessed

Williams v. Commonwealth Of Kentucky

24 F.3d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 1994

qualified immunity issues. … III. 69 Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Williams' First Amendment claim. It was clearly established that the speech Williams cites as the reason for her demotion addressed matters of public concern.

Alton v. Hopgood

994 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 18, 1998

Although the Fifth Circuit has clearly established a two-step inquiry for qualified immunity, confusion abounds in the case law and in the briefs submitted to this Court. … Although holding that qualified immunity shielded the defendant's from liability, at least one Court has held on similar facts that such rights are clearly established. See Nesmith Through Nesmith v.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Cooke

149 S.W.3d 700 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 1, 2004

The Department urges that immunity has not been waived because Johnson has failed to establish by his pleadings and the evidence that he was denied the job because of his race. … Although the Department believes that Johnson was clearly not qualified for the position and that, therefore, he had no prima facie case and necessarily pleaded fraudulently that he was qualified, for the reasons already

Spinelli

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 24, 2025

As Imbler and its progeny establish, absolute prosecutorial immunity is intended to protect the judicial process, not the prosecutor. See Briscoe v. … App'x at 705 (discerning no absolute immunity where prosecutors allegedly fabricated evidence “for the purpose of establishing probable cause”).

Andrea Martinez v. Ronnet Sasse

37 F.4th 506 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

Sasse moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Sasse is entitled to qualified immunity.

Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Calvin Black

706 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 7, 2013

Under the qualified-immunity doctrine a public officer or employee is subject to liability only for violating a federal -9- constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established … We conclude that Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim. III.

Gooden v. Crain

405 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 13, 2005

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity is available when the plaintiff is seeking damages.

Merring v. City of Carbondale, Pennsylvania

558 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … If it was, the law regarding entry into a house to make an arrest is clearly established, and qualified immunity would not apply in the instant case.

Carol J. Applewhite v. United States Air Force, Randall L. Faulkner, Leonard Ross, and William E. McBride

995 F.2d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 10, 1993

The said officers moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, contending that their acts did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Mrs. … It is now well established that a law-enforcement official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Gehl Group v. Koby

838 F. Supp. 1409 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 2, 1993

Qualified immunity allows a public official to escape liability if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Bights Next, I must examine the second component of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established law precluding qualified immunity.

Green v. Post

574 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 7, 2009

Because we held that the law was not clearly established at the time of the accident, however, we held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Zitta v. Graham

996 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 24, 2014

As long as the conduct was “objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken,” qualified immunity applies. Id. … As explained above, Officer Graham is entitled to qualified immunity because the point at which an officer’s conduct reaches state action in these circumstances has not been clearly established.