Case law

Asociación De Subscripción Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Flores Galarza

484 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2007

Second Prong: Constitutional Right was “Clearly Established” at Time of Violation “The second question [of the qualified immunity analysis] deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time … The qualified immunity inquiry recognizes that “[i]t is not always evident at the time an official takes an action that a clearly established right is involved.

Louisiana Farms v. LA. Dept. of Wildlife

685 So. 2d 1086 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Applying the foregoing principles to our qualified immunity analysis, the first question becomes whether the DWF officers' conduct in constructively seizing the Bartmess' entire farming operation violated "clearly established

Robert P. Brennan v. Township of Northville, Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

78 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1996

Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee appeal the denial of qualified immunity in this action premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … II A denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds may be reviewed on interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v.

Torres v. Runyon

80 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

If the official violated a constitutional right, he or she nonetheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established such that a reasonable official “would understand that what he is doing … The next prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “ ‘a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

McDonald v. Kempthorne

831 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as  - 21 - their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … and whether that right was clearly established.

Christopher Lee Prosser v. Davis L. Ross, Co I

70 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 1995

Ross is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated Prosser’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Johnson v. … Ross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Robert Wilson v. David Spain, Mike Jones

209 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2000

from excessive force while detained by law enforcement officials and that the right has been clearly established. … Since the right to be free from excessive force in the context of an arrest has been clearly established for some time, other circuits have simply held that, in excessive-force eases, the qualified-immunity inquiry and the

Brumley v. Utah State Tax Commission

220 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Utah Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1993

However, a plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of a constitutional or statutory right may overcome the defendant officials’ qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of … Because the constitutional rights in question were not “clearly established” during the twenty-day period, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ civil rights action on the ground of qualified immunity

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Qualified immunity "shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity defense fails to bar the First Amendment claim.

Moore v. Morgan

922 F.2d 1553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 7, 1991

Finally, Moore contends that even if Morgan and the commissioners did not waive the defense of qualified immunity, they did not meet their burden of establishing the defense. … He correctly stated that the test for qualified immunity is an objective one: whether reasonable county commissioners could have concluded their conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information

Steven Hyer v. City and County of Honolulu

118 F.4th 1044 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 2024

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity with respect to the use of a police dog because the law was not clearly established.  HYER V. … Indeed, “[e]ven if a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the violated right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” Andrews v.

Van De Yacht v. the City of Wausau

661 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 13, 2009

on the ground of qualified immunity. … one is enough to establish the defense of qualified immunity.

Smith v. Township of Prairieville

194 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 11, 2016

Accordingly, no constitutional violation occurred, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for this claim. 2. The right was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right Detective Gustafson also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity “because it was not clearly established in this particular context that opéning a utensil drawer during a consensual search

Wright v. Dee

54 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 1999

A state actor is qualifiedly immune where his actions did not violate rights that a reasonable person would have known were clearly established. Stuto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820, 825 (2d Cir.1999). … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Wright’s disciplinary hearing that assignment to the SHU for three years and the loss of good time credits

Collins v. School Board of Dade County

981 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1993

Most important for qualified immunity purposes, Loudermill established no bright line test for when a delay would become a constitutional violation. 4 See generally Barts v. … Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1194 (11th Cir.1989) (“Harlow’s ‘clearly established’ standard requires that a bright line be crossed” if defense of qualified immunity is to be overcome).

Townsel v. Jamerson

240 F. Supp. 3d 894 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2017

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants urge the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs claims based on *905 the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Dkt. 23 at 9-11.) … Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability, trial, and interference with their duties when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Purtell v.

E. Irene Wrigley v. Basil G. Greanias, Individually and as State's Attorney in and for MacOn County, Illinois

842 F.2d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 1988

Greanias would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that a state’s attorney was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position. … Greanias’ claim of qualified immunity clearly is premised on acceptance of his view of the position’s re *960 sponsibilities. He does not contend that, even if Mrs.

Jaymes Stark v. Lee County IA

993 F.3d 622 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 7, 2021

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” … In the absence of a showing that Sproul acted with deliberate indifference, Stark has not established the existence of an Eighth Amendment violation.2 We therefore reverse the order denying the motion for qualified immunity

Grant v. Winik

948 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2013

Accordingly, using pepper spray under these circumstances did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law, and so the Court finds that Baran is entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. 3. … Under these circumstances, Winik’s use of deadly force did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. Accordingly, Winik is entitled to qualified immunity.

Avila v. Butt Thornton & Baher, P.C.

New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2025

officers are protected by qualified immunity. … qualified immunity is available to BTB cannot be upheld.