Case law

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

Mendez-Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt

813 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

not “clearly established.” … The district courts in the cases presently before us concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Elrod and Branti clearly established that the first amendment protects government employees from

Knussman v. State of Maryland

272 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2001

Public officials “are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Clement v. Gomez

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

"If the law did not put the [officials] on notice that [their] conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . I. … Clearly Established Law 23 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 incident.

Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority

161 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1998

(en banc), cert. denied , — - U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 412 , 139 L.Ed.2d 315 (1997) (explaining that decisions from only these courts clearly establish the law for the purposes of qualified immunity). … immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including one under state law, or must the clearly established right be the federal right

J.M.M. v. Hernandez

151 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, D. Nevada · Dec 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity under Section 1983 Qualified immunity-shields state actors from monetary liability under *1132 § 1983 unless (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish a violation of the plaintiffs constitutional … rights and (2) the constitutional right in question was “clearly established” when the alleged misconduct occurred. 49 A state official enjoys qualified immunity if she “reasonably believes that [her] conduct complies with

Turner v. Nelson

342 S.W.3d 866 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2011

application of “qualified official immunity.” … Qualified Official Immunity from Tort Liability Turner also argues that she is entitled to “qualified official immunity” from suit.

Nichols v. Block

656 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, D. Montana · Mar 5, 1987

This qualified immunity is in the nature of an affirmative *1441 defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established constitutional rights of which a … Whether the officials may prevail in their defense of qualified immunity depends upon “the objective reasonableness of [their] conduct as measured by clearly established law.”

Leisure v. City of Cincinnati

267 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity for Defendant Roach Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects “government officials acting in their official capacities from damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or … The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to ask whether the alleged constitutional violations were clearly established at the time of the shooting of Timothy Thomas.

Wilson v. Zellner

200 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 26, 2002

immunity because Plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time of Zellner’s actions. … Under this prong of the qualified immunity analysis the issue is whether it was clearly established at the time of Defendant Zellner’s actions that it was unlawful for a prison official to detain a prisoner for a period of

Eddie Humes, Sr. v. Misty Jones

109 F.4th 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2024

Lieutenant Jones and Deputy Gray asserted qualified immunity in their motion for summary judgment, which the district court 1 denied in relevant part. … Thus, the right that Humes asserts was clearly established, and the district court properly denied Lieutenant Jones and Deputy Gray’s motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.

Pamela S. Birkenholz v. Gary Sluyter, Jon P. Schrage and Larry L. Muir, Daniel Keniston and Woodhaven Learning Center

857 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 13, 1988

If such a violation would not have been apparent in light of available remedies, Birkenholz’ due process right is not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Because any violation could not have been apparent, Birkenholz’ due process right was not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.

John Doe, a Minor, (Born 01/28/90) by His Next Friend Jane Doe Jane Doe, Individually v. State of Hawaii Department of Education, and David Keala

334 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 2003

ANALYSIS A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violates “ ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Koch, 96 F.3d at 1301 (quoting Harlow … If so, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity only if the constitutional right that he allegedly violated was not clearly established. Id. A.

Aspen Exploration Corp. v. Sheffield

739 P.2d 150 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1987

Second, Aspen asserts that our prior deci *153 sions establish a rule of qualified, rather than absolute, immunity. … See generally Comment, Immunity: Eliminating the Subjective Element from the Qualified Immunity Standard in Actions Brought Against Government Officials, 22 Washburn L.Rev. 577 (1983). *158 The one exception established to

Dallas Independent School District v. Finlan

27 S.W.3d 220 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Oct 3, 2000

Qualified Immunity Analysis Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for civil damages, if “their conduct does not violate … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Chance v. Coquille Indian Tribe

327 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1998

Defendants deny that the *322 contract or any other legal document of the Tribe contains anything that qualifies as a waiver of sovereign immunity. … Defendants argue that the quoted contract provision is incomprehensible and cannot qualify as an unequivocal waiver of immunity.

Jarvis v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE

227 W. Va. 472 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2010

Postponing review of a ruling denying immunity to the post-trial stage is fruitless ... because the underlying objective in any immunity determination (absolute or qualified) is immunity from suit. … How could any court ever conclude that the general concepts of negligence do not constitute clearly established law?

Brinston v. Dunn

928 F. Supp. 669 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 22, 1996

And finally, Dunn maintains that she is entitled to qualified immunity, in any event, since plaintiffs claimed First Amendment right was not- clearly established at the time his employment was terminated. … However, “[government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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.

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