Case law

Harold Werkheiser v. Pocono Township

780 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 2015

Because we conclude that the contours of the First Amendment right at issue were not clearly established, we hold that Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim.1 … Appellants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding Werkheiser’s rights was not clearly established. The District Court rejected this argument as well.

Peelman v. Delaware Joint Vocational School District Board of Education

763 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 1991

Fitzgerald involved the application and scope of the qualified immunity of federal executive officials arising under federal law, some questioned the applicability of the Harlow decision to a defense of qualified immunity … Therefore, because the same facts which would establish the validity of the plaintiff’s claim under § 1983, would serve to deny the defendants the protection afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, the defendants

David Powell v. Jerry L. Gallentine Robert C. Martin Maria Elvira Rodriguez Richard C. Kauzlaric, Western New Mexico University Board of Regents

992 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1993

We have previously set out the procedure for analyzing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the defendant must raise the defense of qualified immunity. … official violated the clearly established law.

Tasker v. Moore

738 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 1990

Thus, the threshold question to be answered by a court presented with a defense of qualified immunity is whether the law was “clearly established” at the time the action complained of was taken. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Demoret v. Zegarelli

451 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2006

I Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … clearly established law.

Julie Peffer v. Mike Stephens

880 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2018

That is because we are convinced that there was no clearly established constitutional violation and therefore qualified immunity applies. … Because there was no constitutional violation, we need not address the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, whether the law was clearly established.

Seaman v. Karr

114 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing *681 violates that right.

Lamonte Jackson-Gibson v. Reginald Beasley

118 F.4th 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.”

Meas v. City and County of San Francisco

681 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2010

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear … Here, defendants argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because none of their actions violated clearly established law.

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).

Howard v. Wilkinson

305 F. Supp. 3d 1327 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 2, 2018

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 would have known … The Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that the Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

de Veloz v. Miami-Dade County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 8, 2017

Once a qualified immunity defense has been asserted, unless Plaintiffs’ “allegations state a claim of violation1 of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Nagy v. Mone, et al.

2007 DNH 143 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 28, 2007

If plaintiff does allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, I examine the next two steps in the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional … Thus, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at step two. C. Step Three: Would a Reasonable Officer Have Understood That His Conduct Violated Clearly Established Constitutional Rights?

Phat's Bar & Grill v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government

918 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2013

Thus, Kentucky law adopts both an objective and a subjective approach to qualified immunity, whereas the federal law only provides immunity where the official objectively violated a person’s clearly established rights. … Because Officer Smith cannot prove that he did not violate Williams, Jr.’s clearly-established rights, Officer Smith’s claim to qualified official immunity on the Kentucky malicious prosecution claim must be denied.

Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros, Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros

308 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 29, 2002

("Even though the officers' actions deprived Robles of an actual constitutional right, Rozar and DeBarros may still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident." … Rather, it appears that the panel actually granted qualified immunity either on the wholly illegitimate ground that the officers did not subjectively understand that their conduct violated clearly established law, or on the

Franz v. Lytle

791 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 15, 1992

Qualified immunity claims are governed by the objective albeit fact-intensive “clearly established law” standard enunciated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … ‘clearly established’ law.”

Reed v. Iranon

940 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Sep 13, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v.

Tiscareno v. Anderson

639 F.3d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2011

Because such an obligation was not clearly established, we conclude that Anderson was entitled to qualified immunity. … Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably in light of clearly established law.

Copelin-Brown v. New Mexico State Personnel Office

399 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

Qualified Immunity We review de novo a district court’s ruling on qualified immunity. Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254, 1259 (10th Cir. 2002). … At the same time, the Court has stated that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Richard Ceballos v. Gil Garcetti Frank Sundstedt Carol Najera County of Los Angeles

361 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

The Constitutional Right Was Clearly Established Even if Ceballos’s speech is constitutionally protected, the defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established … law is clearly established, and qualified immunity is therefore unavailable.