Case law

Crawford v. Kemp

139 P.3d 1249 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2006

With respect to Crawford’s constitutional claims, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, a reasonable … entitled to qualified immunity so long as they did not violate "clearly established” law); see also Samaniego, 2 P.3d at 84 (applying the federal test for official immunity to a claim for excessive force). 13 .

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.

Jones v. Price

696 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Mar 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Price also has argued that good faith qualified immunity shields him from liability in this action because his conduct did not violate a clearly established right held by Jones. … Here, Price has failed to establish that he is shielded by 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

Parrish v. City of Wilmington

3 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2014

Stanforth further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity (Id.). … Riley further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because in his view the law is not clearly established as to what process is due when an employee resigns (Id.).

Hathaway v. Stone

687 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 27, 1988

Even if it did, they further contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As set out in Voutour , the standard for qualified immunity is whether a government official performing discretionary functions should reasonably have known that his or her actions violated clearly established statutory or

Broam v. Bogan

320 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2003

, or the constitutional right was not clearly established on the date of the alleged violation. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Newberry v. Board of County Commissioners

919 P.2d 141 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1996

Our statutory provision clearly is one in which immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521 (Wyo.1994); Hurst v. State, 698 P.2d 1130 (Wyo.1985). See Kimbley v. … If a statute employs a term which has a standard meaning, the term is presumably used in its ordinary and usual sense unless another sense is clearly intended. W.S. 8-1- *146 103(a)(i).

Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S.

281 F. App'x 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity* “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If the right at issue was not clearly established ... then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir.2007).

Guerrero v. Deane

750 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity 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 … For purposes of the clearly established inquiry, “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Chesney v. City of Jackson

171 F. Supp. 3d 605 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 21, 2016

“The ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Sheets, 287 F.3d at 586 . Application of the doctrine of qualified immunity entails two inquiries. … Thus, in determining whether a government official has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under the second prong of the qualified immunity standard, a court must inquire whether “[t]he contours of the right

Magrum v. Meinke

332 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The officer, however, was still entitled to qualified immunity because the court could not “say that it was clearly established as of February 20, 2001, that a police officer may not detain an individual exiting a house reportedly

SMITH v. MCKINNEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2023

As an affirmative defense, the burden of establishing qualified immunity falls on to the official claiming it. , 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011). … clearly established when the conduct took place. , 905 F.3d at 716.

Maye v. Reno

231 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2002

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … right would have been violated on the facts alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered,...

Michael Segaline v. State Of Wa, Dept. Of L & I

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2017

If Alan Croft has qualified immunity as to the trespass notice he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that flowed from it. ... Absent a clearly established right, Mr. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability and money damages so long as "'their conduct does not violate clearly established ...

Bradley v. Arkansas Department of Education

301 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

“If no ... right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. … In other words, “[i]f the law did not put [the defendant] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier v.

McLain v. Milligan

847 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 15, 1994

The relevant inquiry for assessing whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed” that Defendant’s actions were lawful “in light of clearly established law and the … This Court has delineated a two-step analysis for assessing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the court must consider the more general question of whether the law establishing the right allegedly violated was ‘clearly

Andrew Cooperrider v. Maggie Woods

127 F.4th 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … First, qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is less potent than absolute immunity.

Giles v. Kearney

571 F.3d 318 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 2009

right” and “the right was clearly established” at the time of the objectionable conduct. … In holding that no constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident and in granting qualified immunity to the officers in their individual capacities, the District Court noted Giles’ factual allegations

Allan F. Archer, Jr. v. Gilbert Sanchez

933 F.2d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

Anderson then guides our inquiry into whether qualified immunity shields Mr. … While the court must decide whether the law in question was clearly established, Meade v.