Case law

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

Wesley v. Rigney

913 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Dec 18, 2012

Defendant is also entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were ob *324 jectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … However, the Court also recognized that this rule was not clearly established after Hartman and, therefore, the officer-petitioner was entitled to qualified immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 14, 2008

I believe an individual thus certified by the Division of Health and Human Services as an EMT would clearly qualify as a "health care professional" for purposes of applying the Good Samaritan Act. … Any first responder who qualifies as a "health care professional" would consequently enjoy qualified immunity for providing emergency care, but only if he did not receive compensation either for his time or expenses, in consideration

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.

Santos v. Zabbara

984 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields Defendants, as “government officials performing discretionary functions,” from liability for damages under Section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Macareno v. Thomas

378 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2019

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Because Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right was clearly established, the Court DENIES Defendant Officers' motion for qualified immunity. iii.

Massaro v. Town of Trumbull

525 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 13, 2007

Qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions *307 violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Gardner v. Evans

811 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider two questions: First, did the defendant violate a constitutional right? And second, were the contours of that right clearly established? … notice requirement was clearly established.

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.

Kane ex rel. K.J. v. Chester County Department of Children, Youth & Families

10 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2014

The CYF Motion to Dismiss next argues that the discretionary conduct of the CYF defendants is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because plaintiff has not pleaded a right that was so clearly established that … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” James v.

Mildred I. Goyco De Maldonado v. Jose A. Rivera, Etc.

849 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 9, 1988

Where qualified immunity is the issue, the relevant query is whether, at the time of the challenged employment action, “it was clearly established that employees in the particular positions at issue, in light of the responsibilities … , qualified immunity shields that conduct.

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

148 F. Supp. 3d 1232 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 7, 2015

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … with the prior case law and granted qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.

Ammons v. Washington Department of Social & Health Services

648 F.3d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 17, 2011

In reviewing the denial of qualified immunity, we consider the “purely legal issue of whether facts alleged by the plaintiff support a claim of violation of clearly established law” such that appellants are not immune from … This conclusion, at least, serves as clearly established law.

Drevdahl v. City of Fairfield

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects 7 government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 8 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified 11 immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a 12 statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

Troy Lee Douthit v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas, and W. H. McCallum

619 F.2d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 1980

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … Thus the immunity defense is not available to officials if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right

Hopkins v. O'CONNOR

282 Conn. 821 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jul 3, 2007

Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, supra, 272 Conn. 790 (noting that distinction between qualified immunity and absolute immunity is that persons protected by latter immunity are not hable for malicious “conduct and statements … Ed. 2d 288 (1967) (police officer sued for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has only qualified immunity).

Buxton v. Nolte

473 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2007

Since the facts do not give rise to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity on the arrest without probable cause claim. b. … Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Kamel Chaney-Snell v. Andrew Young

98 F.4th 699 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

Page 25 clearly established right at the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis. … Besides, Chaney-Snell could not overcome the second step of the qualified-immunity test by using these cases. Unpublished decisions cannot create clearly established rights.

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.

Amanda Smith v. R. Ray

781 F.3d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 18, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred such … Supp. at 580 5 In arguing that the unconstitutionality of his conduct was not clearly established, Ray argues that it was not clearly established that the hair pulling by itself would constitute excessive force