Case law

Nolin v. Isbell

207 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2000

In this case, like Sheth , Appellant accepts Appellee’s version of the events and argues those facts do not demonstrate a violation of clearly established law. 1 This Court conducts a de novo review of qualified immunity … Qualified immunity protects from civil liability government officials who perform discretionary functions if the conduct of the officials does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Golden Rule Insurance v. Long

113 N.C. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1993

In order to defeat the qualified immunity, plaintiff had to show that defendant violated some clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … This standard determines if further proceedings are barred by qualified immunity by examining the law in existence at the time of the offense to determine if it contained “clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable

Dorsett-Felicelli, Inc. v. County of Clinton

371 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 1, 2005

Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … County Defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was -objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established 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

Shelton v. Angelone

148 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 21, 2001

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-819 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v.

Doe v. LaDue

514 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 4, 2007

Plaintiffs allege that the OPD’s proactive monitoring approach violated Doe’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 2 and that defendants are not entitled to qualified … As the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable. search and seizure is a well-established right, even for predatory offender registrants, qualified immunity does not protect the defendant officers. Cf.

Fields v. COUNTY OF BEAUFORT IN SOUTH CAROLINA

699 F. Supp. 2d 756 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 22, 2010

Officials lose the protection of qualified immunity if it appears that (1) they violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the acts complained … As previously set forth, the qualified immunity shield operates at two levels: (1) the particular right must be clearly established in the law; and (2) the manner in which this right applies to the actions of the official

Owens v. Colburn

860 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 26, 1994

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages ... as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Mozzochi v. … It also seems that once you have determined the need for the defense of [qualified immunity], ... the officer has acted unreasonably ... and has violated clearly established law.”) see also Graham, 490 U.S. at 399 n. 12,

Hawkins v. Baca

114 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 22, 2000

Public officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the constitutional right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation; or (2) a reasonable official would have … The question was whether that policy violated clearly established law.

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.

Dull v. WEST MANCHESTER TP. POLICE DEPT.

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

The court may *749 eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant acted … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional *752 rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Walnut Properties, Inc. v. City of Whittier

861 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 9, 1988

or, alternatively, qualified immunity. … However, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, because we hold that the law did not clearly establish that the second ordinance was unconstitutional at the time it was enacted.

Tillman v. Coley

703 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 18, 1989

denial of defendant’s claim of good faith or qualified immunity. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp

576 N.W.2d 505 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1998

Questions of qualified immunity are usually ones of law for a court to decide. Wishnatsky . … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish, his of her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Hubert Arturo Acevedo v. Alex Diaz de la Portilla

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2026

The qualified immunity test is a familiar one. … We now turn to the second element of qualified immunity, and we ask whether Acevedo’s rights were clearly established.

Gomez v. Lozano

839 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 13, 2012

Qualified immunity does not apply where (1) the facts show a constitutional-rights violation, and (2) the law clearly established that right at the time the official violated it. See Pearson v. … Therefore, qualified immunity attaches to Mr. Lozano. Even if I independently considered the clearly established-law issue, I would hold that qualified immunity attaches.

PJ Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wagner

603 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2010

The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis ensures that governmental actors are given fair warning that their conduct is unconstitutional before they are held liable for damages based on that conduct … ’ claims of qualified immunity. 2.

(PC) McNeil v. Toor

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity 28 In the alternative, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because there 1 is not clearly established case law that provided Defendants … ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged 6 misconduct.”

Marvin v. Fitch

126 Nev. 168 · Nevada Supreme Court · May 27, 2010

Generally, qualified immunity, 5 rather than absolute immunity, is sufficient to protect nonjudicial officers in the performance of their duties, id. at 617 , 55 P.3d at 425 (quoting Burns v. … Qualified immunity may also provide immunity from suit so long as the defendant’s actions were not in violation of clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

Kenneth B. Krohn v. United States of America

742 F.2d 24 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 28, 1984

Further, we are cognizant that qualified immunity differs from absolute immunity in that it is not so readily decided by motion; obviously, on some occasions officials possessing only qualified immunity must stand trial. … Briscoe established an absolute immunity from section 1983 suit for a police officer/witness.