Case law

Sonoda v. Cabrera

255 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants, to the extent they have been sued in their individual capacities for violation of § 1983, have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Because Sonoda has established a constitutional violation based upon due process, it is necessary to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Jackson v. Rapps

746 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Aug 13, 1990

The qualified immunity bar applies when the alleged conduct does not violate, under an objective standard of review, a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … The Court held that Mitchell was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that such wiretaps were unconstitutional. Id. at 2818.

Francis Brauner v. Shirley Coody

793 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Denying qualified immunity implies both “that a certain course of conduct would . . . be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law” and “that a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant … To determine that an official is not entitled to qualified immunity, the court must find that every reasonable officer would have understood that the alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Harrell v. City of New York

161 F. Supp. 3d 180 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 2016

Qualified immunity shields prosecutors “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.” … ’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Bradway v. Gonzales

26 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

Piesco, 12 F.3d at 343 . 27 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As noted above, the Supreme Court had not clearly established inadvertence as a necessary element of a lawful plain view seizure.

Musso-Escude v. Edwards

101 Wash. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2000

is alleged. 22 Qualified immunity protects an official only for those acts done in good faith. 23 In general, executive branch officials are afforded qualified immunity. 24 *569 Where a state actor claims immunity against … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or

Richard Powell v. Randy Johnson

405 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 2, 2005

On appeal, the Appellants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the decision to demote Powell was reasonable in light of clearly established law. … If the answer is no, qualified immunity is proper and summary judgment should be granted. If the answer is yes, we next decide “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Rivas v. Martin

781 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 2011

Second, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any of Rivas’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. (Id. at 6.) … Thus, because the allegations state that defendants violated Rivas’ clearly established constitutional rights, defendants cannot be granted qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.

Herman v. City of Tucson

197 Ariz. 430 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 23, 1999

In defense, the City asserted qualified immunity under the recreational use statute. … To conclusively establish recreational user status based solely on the City’s grant of permission to all persons to enter a park, the Hermans argue, would result in “a ‘blanket immunity’ that covers everyone in the world,

Usavage v. Port Authority

932 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity and Excessive Force “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 … Accordingly, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established only if (1) the officers’ actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that their actions did

Sprouse v. Ryan

346 F. Supp. 3d 1347 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 7, 2017

Qualified immunity therefore turns on the second prong-whether the right at issue was clearly established such that Defendants would have known that their conduct was unlawful. See Saucier v. … Unpublished district court decisions "may inform our qualified immunity analysis," but "absent any published opinions on point or overwhelming obviousness of illegality[,]" a right is rarely clearly established.

Watson v. Norris

729 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 7, 1989

of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … The current test, as summarized by the Sixth Circuit, is this: if the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff must show a violation of the constitutional right or rights and “that these rights were so clearly

Madiwale v. Savaiko

117 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 1997

Lanier, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 1227, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997).1 The qualified immunity inquiry, then, must establish first, whether the defendant government official was performing a discretionary function … Thus, we cannot say that Savaiko violated clearly established law by reporting Madiwale to the DPR, and she is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Vista McDuffie v. Hopper

982 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 23, 1997

The opinion does so by jumping directly to a discussion of whether the doctor had violated clearly established law, Id. at 721, assuming, without deciding, that qualified immunity necessarily follows § 1983 liability. … Again, however, the court does so by jumping straight to an analysis of clearly established law; it does not address the question whether private party doctors are entitled to claim qualified immunity at all.

Peters v. Woodbury County

979 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Oct 25, 2013

In short, the answer to the second qualified immunity question on this claim, whether the right was “clearly established,” is “no.” e. … of the “qualified immunity” analysis.

Eric K. Brooks v. D Miller

78 F.4th 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2023

He argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of Brooks’s con- stitutional rights, and even assuming he did, any rights were not clearly established. … In sum, the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity in- quiry asks whether the law when the officer engaged in the USCA11 Case: 21-10590 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2023 Page: 22 of

Rasanen Ex Rel. Estate of Rasanen v. Brown

603 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

Here, Brown and Etherton seek summary judgment on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Nielander v. Board of County Commissioners

582 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … -24- concluding that statement two was a true threat under clearly established federal law) cannot be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

956 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 28, 2013

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court, faced with the clearly established prong of Wilson’s qualified immunity, recognized that “courts considering qualified immunity for strip searches” have found it “impossible to establish clearly the contours

Lawson v. Gregg

140 F. Supp. 3d 873 · District Court, D. Alaska · Oct 20, 2015

could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.” 44 “Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make … The United ‘States Supreme Court has held that a court should “not ... define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” 53 “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be