Case law

Smith v. Stafford

189 P.3d 1065 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2008

that qualified immunity is appropriate. … 42 If the allegations show a constitutional violation, courts then must determine whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established," which occurs where the "contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that

Livingood v. Meece

477 N.W.2d 183 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

Meece asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Rhein v. Coffman

118 F. Supp. 3d 1093 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Coffman also is correct that even if his post-revocation conduct violated Rhein’s due process rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. I. … clearly established law.

Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

416 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2006

However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

John Hogan v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

722 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon qualified immunity: “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”10

Julian C. Lee v. Jake Gregory, United States of America, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

363 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 2004

Gregory moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Although the facts in Mendocino Environmental Center are different from the facts in issue here, “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel

Johnson v. Carroll

658 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 7, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … “Qualified immunity involves the following two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at

Gibbons v. McBride

124 F. Supp. 3d 1342 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 21, 2015

Thus, “[i]f a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court should grant qualified immunity if the plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established … established for purposes of qualified immunity); Riley v.

Womble v. Singing River Hosp.

618 So. 2d 1252 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1993

Qualified Immunity The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity to the members of the board of trustees for Singing River Hospital, Dr. Jack Longmire, Dr. … Moreover, it promotes a goal beyond the pale of the traditional justification for qualified immunity. Today, we hold that common law qualified public official immunity will be restricted to its designed purpose.

Gooden v. Howard County

954 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 1992

Gooden further argues that the defendants did not act reasonably in light of clearly established law. … However, “if the test of ‘clearly established law’ were to be applied at this level of generality,”....

Hyman v. Morris

320 F. Supp. 3d 707 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2018

applicable standard for ascertaining whether a right was "clearly established" for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity: "A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley, Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley

45 F.3d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1995

If disputed factual issues material to qualified immunity are present, the district court’s denial of summary judgment sought on the basis of qualified immunity is not appealable. Feagley v. … An official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity if, in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time of the' action, it was objectively reasonable.

Military Circle Pet Center No. 94, Inc. v. Cobb County

665 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 20, 1987

Because plaintiff has presented evidence that defendants committed acts in violation of plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff … Because a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, defendants’ argument regarding Defendant Head’s "prosecutorial immunity” and lack of unconstitutional

West v. Phillips

883 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1994

The Applicability of Qualified Immunity to the Defendants The Supreme Court established the modern doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra. … The test for determining qualified immunity in Harlow, Anderson, and Casteel focuses on the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, not a “clearly established” affirmative defense. 11 In support of her

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the “right” they allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment’s protection against excessive force was not clearly established

William T. Broderick v. Francis Roache, Arthur Morgan, Jr.

996 F.2d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 1993

Tirado-Delgado, 982 F.2d 34, 38 (1st Cir.1993) (awarding defendant qualified immunity from damage claim because the implicated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the complained of acts). … Intent and Qualified Immunity Morgan’s first argument, that the question of his intent is immaterial to the qualified immunity analysis, is premised upon a broad reading of certain language in Harlow .

Crane v. City of Arlington

50 F.4th 453 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is asking “whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” 58 The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the

Martin v. City of Oceanside

205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2002

However, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. … Therefore, the officers did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. The *1153 officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. 3.

Price v. County of San Diego

990 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 8, 1998

immunity. 23 Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits based on their conduct in situations in which they exercise discretion, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. … If the right was not clearly established, then the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. See Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 629 (9th Cir.1991).

Ralph Thomas v. Frank O. Gunter Karen Shortridge, Superintendent Robert Houston, Associate Superintendent

103 F.3d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 1997

operation of penal institutions, enjoy qualified immunity. … The proper inquiry in the present case, therefore, is whether the free exercise of religion within a penal setting is a clearly established right. It has been “clearly established” since Cruz v.