Case law

Elder v. Holloway

751 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, D. Idaho · Nov 21, 1990

another’s ... clearly established constitutional rights?” … Qualified immunity. This court’s analysis on whether or not there was a valid arrest under the circumstances in this case controls the out *866 come on the issue of qualified immunity.

Spiller v. Harris County

113 F.4th 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

However, unique to the qualified immunity context, “to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id. … Sergeant Lindsay is entitled to qualified immunity on Spiller’s excessive force claim.

Matthew Tarabochia v. Mickey Adkins

766 F.3d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 9, 2014

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Clearly Established Although this suspicionless stop and search violated the Fourth Amendment, the WDFW officers are still entitled to qualified immunity on this claim if the Tarabochias’ rights were not clearly established

Branch v. Tunnell

937 F.2d 1382 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1991

On October 3, 1988, Tunnell moved to dismiss Branch’s suit on grounds of qualified immunity, arguing that under the objective qualified immunity standard established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … Because a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity in a Bivens or § 1983 action alleging judicial deception turns on the ability of the plaintiff to establish that the defendant knowingly or recklessly misled the magistrate

John D. Stough v. Walter J. Gallagher

967 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 1992

Stough also contends that Sheriff Gallagher’s actions violated clearly established due process law. V.DISCUSSION A. Qualified Immunity and the First Amendment The Supreme Court held in Harlow v. … ’s actions, and (2) whether the public official’s conduct violated that clearly established law.

Von Derhaar v. Watson

109 F.4th 817 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2024

“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 a reasonable person … “The second prong of the qualified- immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)).

Phillips v. Wiseman

64 O.B.A.J. 2317 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 20, 1993

The defendant/Commissioner now seeks a writ of prohibition in this Court based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. The defendant/State of Oklahoma also claims immunity. … Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990) we explained that qualified immunity shields an official from damages insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Atcherson v. Siebenmann

605 F.2d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 1979

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … While we hold infra that Atcherson’s allegations of misconduct by her fellow probation officers qualify for constitutional protection, that conclusion was by no means “clearly established” at the time of the events in question

Mountain Pure, LLC v. Roberts

27 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 13, 2014

Qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995). … Even so, named defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ allegedly violated constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time.

Palmieri v. Kammerer

690 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person … Thus, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is denied on this basis. ii Protective Sweep/Grab Area There is no doubt that the law regarding protective sweeps was “clearly established” under Maryland v.

In Re Scott County Master Docket

672 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 2, 1987

were not “clearly established.” … “[Qualified immunity will be forfeited only when at the time of the conduct in question it is clearly established that plaintiffs have the particular constitutional right and that the statutory and regulatory provisions in

Williams v. Morahan

539 F. App'x 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2013

Under well-established precedent, Officer Morahan is entitled to qualified immunity unless Mr. … None of those authorities, however, can create clearly established law for purposes of federal qualified immunity analysis. See Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 , 1033 n. 10 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc). Cf.

Kirkland v. St. Vrain Valley School District No. Re-1J

464 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

After a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right … This is the process for the law’s elaboration from case to case, and it is one reason for our 5 If “the plaintiff successfully establishes the violation of a clearly established right, the burden shifts

Retzlaff v. De La VINA

606 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 4, 2009

Finally, defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to Retzlaffs federal constitutional claims. Defendants have presented evidence that their actions were reasonable in light of clearly established law. Kinney v. … that defendants’ actions violated clearly established federal law.

Pasqualone v. Gately

422 Mass. 398 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 5, 1996

As the Supreme Court stated in *403 Anderson, supra at 639 , “[pjlaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by … Although we have no doubt that Gately violated Pasqualone’s clearly established constitutional rights, we must acknowledge that this case exposes a gap in our law.

Poteet v. Sullivan

218 S.W.3d 780 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Were the constitutional rights violated by Officers Sullivan and Lucio clearly established?

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

Heller's assistant) contend that as government contractors that did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and liability under section 1983. 7 Generally, the key question to be answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts.

Tiffany King v. Charles Blackwood

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

Officers Berry and Linster advance three more arguments for why the right was not clearly established. … There, an officer made supervisory rounds without looking inside the cells, and we held that he had not violated clearly established law “because there is no clearly established constitutional right to properly

Grayson v. Ross

454 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2006

If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine whether the right was clearly established. … Sharum is entitled to qualified immunity. 27 b.

Navorro-Monzo v. Hughes

297 Ark. 444 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1989

Both of these cases concerned qualified privilege or immunity. … It was clearly a privileged publication. Neither the allegations in the complaint nor other matters presented to the court, even if established at trial, would support a finding of malice.