Case law

Lowery v. County of Riley

522 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 14, 2008

DISCUSSION Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If so, the court must then determine whether the right asserted was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id.

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

Daboul v. Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary

64 Va. Cir. 499 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Apr 10, 2002

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … 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 discovery. ...

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.

Nicole K. Brinkman v. City of Des Moines, Iowa

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Oct 11, 2023

Further, whether the law was clearly established is inextricably intertwined with the new qualified immunity defense and only relevant to this case to the 3 The court applied only the particularity and plausibility … Id. at 782−84.  7 extent the new qualified immunity defense is operative in this case, and we already have concluded that qualified immunity is not operative

Martel, et al. v. Town of Chichester, et al.

2013 DNH 098 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 18, 2013

Qualified Immunity - Adinolfo “‘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 … Therefore, in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right, Adinolfo is entitled to qualified immunity. 14  The Martels contend, nevertheless, that a reasonable police

Secot v. City of Sterling Heights

985 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 10, 1997

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Frohm is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. As held by the Sixth Circuit in Adams , the right to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is a clearly established right.

Computer Sciences Corp. v. Ibarra

685 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 27, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that its federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Oswald v. Graves

819 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 26, 1993

Qualified Immunity In his motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

James Carver, Administrator of the Estate of David Allen Carver, Deceased v. City of Cincinnati

474 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

repeatedly without ever becoming clearly established. … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. III. CONCLUSION The Cincinnati police officers and EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity.

Chambers v. Pennycook

641 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 2011

right was clearly established. … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the right that was violated was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 816.

DiPace v. Goord

308 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 2004

On the second issue, plaintiffs argued that the proposed defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to adequate medical care for serious medical needs was clearly established and no reasonable jury … Second, even where such a constitutional right has been violated, the government employee is entitled to qualified immunity “ ‘if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively

Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall

312 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

or statutory right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. … If so, we must subsequently ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the plaintiff does not satisfy either portion of the two-pronged test, the Court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. Gross v.

Larry J. Leaf, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John P. Leaf, Deceased, Martha A. Leaf, John P. Leaf v. Ronald Shelnutt

400 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2005

of one ‘clearly established’ right .... ”); see also International Action Center v. … We note that, even if we had found that the Fourth Amendment forbade the search at issue here, Deputy Shelnutt still would be entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that such a sweep violates

Hogan v. Pataki

953 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1997

Moreover, qualified immunity protects a defendant even where the right in question was clearly established if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. … Naturally, then, in so far as the individually named defendants are concerned, they are entitled to qualified immunity in that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Jeremy Nelson v. County of Wright James R. Hudek

162 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 10, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary tasks are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The standard was clearly established. 5 Whether Hudek is entitled to qualified immunity must be examined from the perspective of the situation as he understood it at the time. Anderson v.

Meyers v. Redwood City

400 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 2005

Defendants claim that they did not violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and, in the alternative, that those rights were not clearly established and Defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … B 29 Even if we thought that the officers crossed a line established by Harris , the officers are surely entitled to qualified immunity because they could not have known that they were violating the Plaintiffs'"clearly established

Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi

202 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 26, 2000

Qualified Immunity 7  In considering Gaines and Perez’s qualified immunity claim, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the “qualified . . . … But that dispute is not dispositive of the qualified immunity question at this moment.

Everitt v. DeMarco

704 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2010

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right possessed by the Plaintiffs.

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