Case law

Thompson v. Mahre

110 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 1997

Whether a right is “clearly established” so that a public official who violated that right would have no qualified immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo. Elder v. … All he needs is qualified immunity, which he has if “a reasonable officer could have believed [the forcible entry without announcement and opportunity to comply peaceably] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Dean v. Blumenthal

577 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

We hold that all requested relief, other than damages, is moot and that appellee is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign … We also hold that appellee Richard Blumenthal is entitled to qualified immunity from Dean’s claim for damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign contributions during

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

603 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government agents from liability for their official actions, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which … An official is entitled to qualified immunity where: (1) the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the official’s actions

Clement v. Gomez

298 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

Resolving the issue of qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … Clearly Established Law The qualified immunity analysis requires us to further consider whether the rights of the prisoners in this case were clearly established at the time of *906 incident.

Kauffman v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

766 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

Pertinent to qualified immunity, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense “on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the predicate establishing the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.” Bethel v. … Second, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Allen L. Nicklasson v. Don Roper, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center

491 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if, in the federal court’s independent judgment “the relevant state-court decision [not only] applied clearly established federal … Nicklasson therefore argues that the issues presented represent an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law set forth in Morgan v.

Wagner v. Northern Berks Regional Police

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2020

C Equally important, Horner is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established that an officer lacks probable cause where the affirmative defenses of compulsory joinder or Double Jeopardy … Does, 779 F.3d 84, 96 (2d Cir. 2015) (granting qualified immunity to officers because if a “defense rests on . . . a legal theory that is not so clearly established . . . it cannot be said that any reasonable officer would

McCaslin v. Wilkins

17 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 1998

A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a Defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Shelley v. County of San Joaquin

954 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2013

of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Johari v. City of Columbus Police Department

186 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2002

Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must “identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated” and second, “establish that a reasonable officer in the … The burden then shifts “to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant[’]s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in the defendant[’]s position [ ] would have clearly understood that [he] w[as

Pride v. Kansas Highway Patrol

793 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 1, 1992

of the law that was clearly established at the time of the offensive conduct. … Because the threshold requirement of establishing a constitutional violation is not met, the qualified immunity analysis necessarily terminates at this point.

Boyd v. Benton County

374 F.3d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 28, 2004

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer for an alleged violation of a constitutional right. … Consequently, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Boyd’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from dangerous flash-bang devices under these circumstances was not clearly established. B.

Almonte v. City Of Long Beach

478 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 2007

Qualified Immunity Based on the "Policymaker Exception" 24 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability for official actions, "unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional … Stated differently, an official is entitled to qualified immunity (1) if the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right, (2) if that right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or (3

Perry v. Lilly

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 6, 2023

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question.

Mazurkiewicz v. New York City Transit Authority

810 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1993

“The right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been *568 clearly established.” Calamia v. New York, 879 F.2d 1025, 1036 (2d Cir.1989). … Defendants must be objectively unreasonable in believing their acts do not violate plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights for plaintiffs Count Four to escape summary judgment by the defense of qualified immunity

Bever v. Gilbertson

724 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 1984

By eliminating the subjective component of the qualified immunity claim, the Supreme Court clearly intended to facilitate disposition of claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment motions, but one must read much into … A public official, clothed with qualified immunity, is not required to anticipate future development of constitutional doctrine, but he is required to respect the established constitutional rights of others.

Gordon v. Frank

454 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 21, 2006

The intentional delay by these officers shows deliberate disregard sufficient to reject qualified immunity. 17 Qualified immunity still protects officers accused of violating a right if the right is not clearly established … A denial of summary judgment may be treated as a final order when based on qualified immunity, but only to decide whether a certain point of law is "clearly established." Sanders v.

Beauregard v. Olson

84 F.3d 1402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1996

Pelletier, --- U.S. ----, ---- 116 S.Ct. 834, 842, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996), to decide the core qualified immunity question of whether it was clearly established before Olson acted that he could not lawfully fire these … This case is not the exceptional case where the individual defendant is unentitled to qualified immunity: it was not clearly established at the time Olson acted that firing Plaintiffs was unlawful.

Larry Richardson v. Nathan Falk

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

clearly established. … Because Falk did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Stephen C. Stem v. Ralph Ahearn and Chris Card

908 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

To hold the child protective services workers personally liable here, Stem must pierce the qualified immunity that they inherently enjoy by demonstrating that the workers breached “clearly established statutory or constitutional … We rejected the TDHS workers’ claim of entitlement to absolute immunity, however, for fear of immunizing intentional violations of clearly established law.