Case law

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.

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.”

Johnson v. Williams

584 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

In this case, however, even if the law on anonymous stops had been clearly established, the officers would still be entitled to *105 immunity because the uncontroverted evidence shows that they did not know the tip was anonymous … Qualified Immunity From Excessive Force Claim The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs claim of *106 excessive force.

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.”

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.

Kerman v. City of New York

261 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 26, 2001

Qualified immunity will attach to an officer’s decision to enter a dwelling in response to perceived exigent circumstances so long as the “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Notwithstanding these earlier indications of the law’s likely evolution, we cannot say that for qualified immunity purposes the current law governing the war-rantless entry in this case was clearly established by October

Van Dyke v. Washington

896 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 3, 1995

However, "the defense of 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 … and (2) whether the constitutional standards implicated were clearly established at the time in question.

Katz v. Molic

727 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 21, 1989

The grant of qualified immunity, then, turns upon whether there was a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendants knew or should have known at the time, a question of law which may be addressed by a motion … The Second Circuit held that the complaint should have been dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity because a reasonable state official would not have known that this conduct violated Neu’s “clearly established statutory

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

699 F. Supp. 1270 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 31, 1988

immunity from money damages unless the conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *1274 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. … To double back a bit, what the earlier analysis established was that such allegations — even though accepted as true — do not divest the individuals of qualified immunity.

Gutierrez v. City of Indianapolis

886 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2012

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are shielded “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that Officer Kermon is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Gutierrez’s excessive force claim.

Estevis v. Cantu

134 F.4th 793 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 2025

We reverse and render judgment granting the officers qualified immunity for all shots fired. … In any event, Estevis bore the burden to negate qualified immunity by showing shots 4–9 violated clearly established law. See King v.

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.

DeMayo v. Nugent

517 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 22, 2008

grounds of qualified immunity. … Law enforcement officers may not violate constitutional rights, then expect qualified immunity when a court refuses to craft an unprecedented exception to a clearly established rule of law.

Miller v. Campbell County, Wyo.

722 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 2, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY As officials performing discretionary functions, the defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity from this lawsuit. Harlow v. … The plaintiff merely asserts that under Harlow , the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the law is clearly established that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law or arrested

Roman Melendez v. Inclan

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right "clearly established" at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.

McMorrow v. Little

109 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that MeMorrow’s claim must be dismissed. … Again we conclude that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that this conduct was unconstitutional.

Gunasekera v. Irwin

551 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2009

established to defeat the defendants’ qualified immunity defense must wait until a factual record has been developed. … established for purposes of qualified immunity before a factual record had been developed.

Allan F. Archer, Jr. v. Gilbert Sanchez

933 F.2d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

Anderson then guides our inquiry into whether qualified immunity shields Mr. … While the court must decide whether the law in question was clearly established, Meade v.

Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin

504 N.W.2d 220 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 27, 1993

Appellants first contend that they are immune from suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Consequently, under the undisputed facts of this case respondents did not have a clearly established right to procedural due process. B.

James Meyer v. Lana J. Robinson, Individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lawrence

992 F.2d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 6, 1993

The court adopted the following rule: “The question determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendants’ actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law … Under the Harlow standard, qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.