Case law

Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc.

645 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 24, 2009

Qualified Immunity: Whether Clearly Established The right not to be arrested unless there is probable cause is clearly established. See Goff v. Bise, 173 F.3d 1068 , 1072 (8th Cir.1999); see also Walker v. … Qualified Immunity The MAC Defendants are deprived of qualified immunity if they violated the right not to be arrested without arguable *785 probable cause or, even if they did, that right was not clearly established.

Delgado v. Miami-Dade County

456 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 9, 2006

For a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, previous case law must have developed it in a concrete factual context so as to make it obvious to a reasonable government actor that his actions violate … The Court finds that Officer David Riley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Allen v. City & County of Honolulu

39 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 28, 1994

immunity because he had not violated “clearly established” federal law. … The Supreme Court had clearly established an inmate’s right of access to a law library well before the time covered by Allen’s complaint. See Bounds v.

MILLER v. GOGGIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

purposes of qualified immunity.” … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of

Patrick F. Boyle v. William Burke, Joseph Yergeau, Mark G. Kelliher, Peter Weeks, Ruth Griffin and Raymond Labrie

925 F.2d 497 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 6, 1991

It is enough that the rights of these reservists were not clearly established until the October, 1986 amendment. … Clearly, therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against all such claims whatever the time period involved.

Arledge v. Sherrill

738 So. 2d 1215 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1999

Additionally, a qualified immunity generally applies to most acts of government officials. 2 Id. In Harlow v. … [[Image here]] It should not be surprising, therefore, that our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must be “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense

Maciariello v. Sumner

973 F.2d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

In denying summary judgment for Sumner and Paskoff, the district court ruled that the law regarding retaliation for First Amendment activity is clearly established and that the “defense of qualified immunity does not ’pertain … Consequently, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Franklin v. Fox

107 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 2000

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MOTIONS Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established … “Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity ‘requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Morse v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Department of State Police

123 F. Supp. 3d 179 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 18, 2015

qualified immunity. … Therefore, to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show that their rights were “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

William Darnell v. Col. John H. Ford

903 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 1990

The court reasoned that this claim was not “clearly established” in the law, and therefore Ford was protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Patrol reinstated Darnell to the rank of Captain. … Whether qualified immunity should be applied in this case depends on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred. The trial court should make this determination.

Baker v. Chaplin

497 N.W.2d 314 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 11, 1993

Under this objective standard, officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, a government official sued for his or her actions in the line of duty is entitled to immunity from suit if a reasonable official could have believed that his or her actions were lawful, in light of clearly established

Wilkins v. DeReyes

528 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity Turning to Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim, we agree with the district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established We now turn to whether the law regarding the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established. If it was not, qualified immunity applies.

Cassiopia Rhoads v. Erik Riddell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 2, 2026

Thus, if the violation of the Eighth Amendment standard was clearly established in 2019, then Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mays v. … Because it was clearly established that the Constitution required Defendants to do something, the Court correctly affirms the denial of qualified immunity.

Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles

222 Cal. App. 3d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1990

The County insists the law clearly provides absolute immunity for the conduct in issue here. “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. [Citation.]” … “Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

April Myrick v. Fulton County, Georgia

69 F.4th 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2023

That means that if a defendant raises the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, the district court must dismiss any claims that do not allege a violation of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity “shields a government official from lia- bility unless he violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Estate of Adkins , by and through Adkins v. County of San Diego

384 F. Supp. 3d 1195 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that officers Vianzon and Perine are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 52-1 at 14-17.) Plaintiff argues that the officers' actions violated clearly established law. (Doc. … Moreover, with respect to Beaver , the Court may "look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes." Boyd v.

Mark Debower, plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant v. County of Bremer, Iowa, Duane Hildebrandt, in His Individual and Official Capacities, and Dennis Miller, in His Individual and Official Capacities, defendants-appellants/cross-appellees.

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Apr 30, 2014

In the post-trial motion ruling the district court noted qualified immunity is defeated where a defendant violates a clearly establish right. … “[T]he 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 a reasonable

Jerome Williams v. Jon Ozmint

716 F.3d 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 15, 2013

Qualified immunity extends to protect officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 531 . … A qualified immunity inquiry involves two steps.

El-Ghazzawy v. Berthiaume

636 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 15, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields a public official . . . from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Doe v. … In analyzing qualified immunity, we ascertain (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly

Bernard Coady v. Russell Steil

187 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1999

immunity because, if the plaintiff had a constitutional right, it was not clearly established on March 18, 1995. … If Steil violated a clearly established constitutional right “of which a reasonable person would have known,” then he may not claim qualified *734 immunity from suit. See Harlow v.