Case law

Rozek v. Topolnicki

865 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

The court held that defendants Reisdorff and Liddle were entitled to qualified immunity because they were working under Topolnicki's direction, and that Rozek had not shown they had violated any clearly established constitutional … We need not reach the question of whether defendant Topolnicki was entitled to summary judgment on the defense of prosecutorial immunity for all of his actions, because the record clearly reflects his entitlement to qualified

Jeffrey Swiecicki v. Jose Delgado

463 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2006

The law of qualified immunity We will “review the denial of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity de novo because application of this doctrine is a question of law.” McCloud v. … Swiecicki’s First Amendment right to free speech was thus clearly established at the time of Delgado’s actions in question. We therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity awarded to Delgado on this issue. b.

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.

Eichler v. Sherbin

283 F. App'x 528 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2008

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 1 and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further consideration of whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id.

Armendariz v. Penman

31 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a federal claim, Siegert, 500 U.S. at 233 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793-94 ; or if in light of clearly established principles … Clearly Established The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Baker v.

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.

Jackson v. Long

102 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 1996

issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was `clearly established.'" … This contention raises the legal questions of whether Sheriff Long violated any clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiffs in responding to the inmate's complaint against them and, if the law clearly established

Peterson v. North Dakota ex rel. North Dakota University System

240 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 3, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In other words, the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Edwards v. Cabrera

861 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity will shield the officers from liability to the extent their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Seventh Circuit has described the qualified immunity inquiry as having two prongs: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged' conduct occurred.

Smith v. Allbaugh

987 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 2021

Constitutional Violation A public official or employee is entitled to qualified immunity unless “clearly established” federal rights of which a reasonable person would have known are shown to have been violated. … Once a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.” Morris v.

Fuhr v. City of Seattle

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2026

CITY OF SEATTLE 3 established law that sets out a constitutional violation. Because no case clearly established a Fourth Amendment right violated by Zech, he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Because no case clearly established a Fourth Amendment right violated by Zech, he is entitled to qualified immunity. II. Other Claims Fuhr’s other claims also fail.

Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified School District

964 F. Supp. 1369 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 1997

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense 1. Whether the Law at the Time of Guzman’s Alleged Acts and Omissions Was Clearly Established a. … The investigator asserted a qualified immunity defense, maintaining that the law did not clearly establish that his actions violated Eastwood’s right to privacy.

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.

District of Columbia v. Minor

740 A.2d 523 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1999

In suits for unlawful arrest brought under § 1983, qualified immunity shields police officers from liability if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and … The instruction given to the jury on qualified immunity stated: “Officer Kelsey is shielded from liability for civil damages as long as he did not intentionally, or with reckless disregard, violate clearly established statutory

Steven M. Harrison v. John Dahm, Etc.

911 F.2d 37 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 1990

The standard for qualified immunity is well established. In Harlow v. … to qualified immunity.

Dube v. State University of New York

900 F.2d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1990

Dube’s file and the standards applicable at Stony Brook and in light of clearly established law” ... is not an answer to Dr. Dube’s claim. Summary judgment is therefore denied based on the qualified immunity defense. … Analysis It is well established that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Anastasio v. Planning Board of West Orange

197 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 1984

Since the trial court at the motion to dismiss the complaint had held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity was available, the next issue to confront the court is the one dealing with qualified immunity. … It then became the task of the Supreme Court to set guidelines for defining the scope of qualified immunity. The guidelines for the scope of qualified immunity were established in the case of Wood v.

Hyburnia Husband v. Charles Bryan and Larry Saurage

946 F.2d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 1991

Violation of Clearly Established Law “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when a reasonable officer could have believed that the challenged conduct did not violate … clearly established statutory or 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.

William G. Moore, Jr. v. Joseph B. Valder

65 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 23, 1996

Furthermore, it has not been clearly established that malicious prosecution violates any constitutional or statutory right. 11 Accord *196 ingly, the postal inspectors’ qualified immunity defeats Moore’s malicious prosecution … Qualified immunity protects a government official who performs discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if he can show that his actions did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights