Case law

Trigalet v. Young

54 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 1995

The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Trigalets’ substantive due process claim upon concluding that, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established that the officers … The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law under which defendants actions could form the basis of a constitutional claim became clearly established on March 1, 1990, when

Williams v. Bitner

285 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2003

Defendants also claim entitlement to qualified immunity on the ground that the violation was not so “clearly established” that prison officials should be expected to avoid it. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73-74 (8th Cir.1995) (finding that Muslim inmates had a clearly established right to refrain from handling pork for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis); Kenner v.

Anthony Davila v. Robin Gladden

777 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2015

Here, we begin and end our qualified immunity analysis with the second question—whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the Defendants violated Mr. Davila’s constitutional rights. … Campos does not therefore clearly establish a right under RFRA in the Eleventh Circuit. For those reasons, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. So even if Mr.

Stanislaw v. Navajo County Bd. of Sup'rs

70 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1995

This admission, along with the statements from the victim and a witness, gave Deputy Clark probable cause to arrest Stanislaw. 6 In addition, the district court properly found Deputy Clark protected by qualified immunity … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (qualified immunity protects an officer who acts reasonably in light of clearly established law). 2.

Marshall Spiegel v. Joseph Cortese, Detective, and James Hennelly and Holly Zielke

196 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials who are performing discretionary functions in the course of duty to the extent that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time in question.”

NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 3, 2023

Emmons, 139 S.Ct. 500, 27 503 (2019). 1 district framed the relevant qualified immunity question as “whether it was clearly 2 established that an officer … immunity on the ground that the law is not clearly 16 established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Hebert v. State

165 Vt. 557 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 18, 1996

Under federal law, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In Hall , for example, the court held that “[i]t was clearly established in 1986 that police officers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who is in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or

Felak v. United States

677 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 11, 1988

The complaint does not specifically allege facts which show a violation of a clearly established right and plaintiff has not submitted a responsive memorandum to the summary judgment motion. … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Velasquez v. Audirsch

574 F. App'x 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In this context, “qualified immunity turns ... on whether it was then ‘clearly established that the circumstances with which’ the officer ‘was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances.’ ” Pierce

Conti v. Village of Quogue

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 20, 2024

Because that use of force does not violate clearly established law, Officer Comito is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive-force claim. … Qualified immunity attaches “when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Frohmader v. Wayne

766 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 7, 1991

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula, 907 F.2d at 131 . … The principles of qualified immunity entitle Wayne to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established law governing the use of force, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his

Glenn-Robinson v. Acker

140 N.C. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2000

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Soderstrand v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

463 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Ex Parte Kelley

739 So. 2d 1095 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 25, 1999

This Court has addressed the question presented here on other occasions, and it has recently held in Ex parte Davis, supra, that acts by a State employee may be immune from a lawsuit, on the basis of qualified immunity, if … However, acts by a State employee that are merely ministerial in nature are not protected by qualified immunity. See Defoor v.

Tonisha via v. Sandra Lagrand, a Dcp Investigator, in Her Individual Capacity

469 F.3d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2006

See Jones, 425 F.3d at 460 (holding that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation). … was not yet clearly established at the time of the investigation of Via.”

Hudson v. Town of East Montpelier

161 Vt. 168 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Nov 29, 1993

Defendants first argue that Parker’s acts were discretionary in nature and thus immune under the doctrine of qualified official immunity. … Bd., 125 Vt. 366, 369, 216 A.2d 44, 46 (1965) (distinction “is not clearly defined,” basis of distinction “is difficult to state,” and no established rule exists for determination of what belongs to which class); Marshall

(PS) Machado v. Lizarraga

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity 26 Lastly, defendants argue that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of 27 qualified immunity. … Cal. 2010) (denying to dismiss complaint on 9 qualified immunity grounds because it could not be clearly determined on the face of complaint, 10 but declaring that the ground could be raised through summary judgment).

Ali v. Reno

237 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

Clearly, her journey back to Syria and then to the United States did not constitute flight from persecution. … Furthermore, she clearly established significant ties in Denmark, even though she did not reside in that country for an extended length of time. 1 *596 In addition, the Danish authorities’ declaration that they are no longer

DePace v. Flaherty

183 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2002

Creighton, to say that the contours of a right must be clearly established “is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.” 31 … Flaherty still would be entitled to qualified immunity, despite the fact that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law, if it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate DePace

Marcello v. Maine

489 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 6, 2007

The First Circuit’s three-step approach to qualified immunity claims asks: (I) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”