Case law

Torrez v. El Paso County Sheriff's Department

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 16, 2021

and qualified immunity is appropriate). … July 22, 2021), the Court engaged in an extremely thorough examination of precedent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding when a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, ultimately finding

Roberts v. Lapp

297 F. App'x 67 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 28, 2008

Parole officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they perform their non-judicial and non-prosecutorial tasks, provided that they do not violate clearly established constitutional norms of which an objectively reasonable … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Elkins v. Summit County, Ohio

615 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity In evaluating qualified immunity claims, we “[f]irst . . . determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established … immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.’”

Burhans v. Lopez

24 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 2014

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” DiStiso v. … Finally, Silver asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under state and city law.

Archibald v. Timmons

2005 DNH 129 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 13, 2005

If the asserted constitutional right was clearly established, the court then decides "whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established … "An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct is objectively reasonable based on the information available at the time and in light of clearly established law." Pena-Borrero v.

Mark Debower, plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant v. County of Bremer, Iowa, Duane Hildebrandt, in His Individual and Official Capacities, and Dennis Miller, in His Individual and Official Capacities, defendants-appellants/cross-appellees.

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Apr 30, 2014

In the post-trial motion ruling the district court noted qualified immunity is defeated where a defendant violates a clearly establish right. … “[T]he doctrine of 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

Samantha Vazquez v. County of Kern

949 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2020

The panel held that the Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v.

Allan Rodgers v. Daniel Knight

781 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 2015

Municipalities do not enjoy qualified immunity, but a municipality “cannot exhibit fault rising to the level of deliberate indifference to a constitutional right when that right has not yet been clearly established.” … At a minimum, the act of retaining the guns did not violate clearly established law.

Martinez v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety

47 F. App'x 513 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

Consistent with that ruling, the court denied qualified immunity to Trooper Boyd on the excessive use of force claim. … “For the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must be as plaintiff maintains.”

John Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky

860 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

Defendant Simpson fails to show this procedure is inapplicable in cases involving qualified immunity.4 The concerns that support determining qualified immunity at the earliest stage of litigation are not present … As qualified immunity is “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it becomes essentially meaningless if a case wrongfully goes to trial. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

Barbera v. Smith

654 F. Supp. 386 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1987

Plaintiff’s claims may be dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity if defendants show that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Unless plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, defendants pleading qualified immunity, as Martin and Schlessinger do here, are entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Tatum v. Winslow

122 F. App'x 309 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2005

If this question is satisfied, then the court turns to the “qualified immunity inquiry,” and asks if the right was clearly established. Id. at 201-2. … The “Qualified Immunity Inquiry” The second step of the Saucier analysis requires that the defendant demonstrate that his misconduct was not a violation of clearly established law. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Robinson v. York

566 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 27, 2009

Defendants appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. … not affect whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Dixon v. Bannister

845 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Nevada · Feb 25, 2012

Alternatively, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show a clearly established right to receive cosmetic dental services. … Plaintiff therefore has failed to demonstrate a clearly established right and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Gelatt v. County of Broome, NY

811 F. Supp. 61 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1993

Qualified immunity, on the other hand, shields the official from civil liability when, in performing a discretionary function, his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Curley v. Klem

499 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2007

step is whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … The District Court clearly saw that problem in this case.

Westmoreland v. Sutherland

718 F. Supp. 2d 884 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 11, 2010

Qualified immunity cases, however, are not precisely on point. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, so long as their official conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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

Margaret Byers v. Gordon Painter

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 17, 2026

The burden of establishing qualified immunity rests on the party seeking the shield of that immunity. Id. … “That means that we may grant qualified immunity [solely] on the ground that the purported right was not clearly established[.]” Id.

Salas v. Carpenter

980 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 8, 1992

IV As sheriff, Carpenter is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that he violated clearly established constitutional law. Anderson v. … Since qualified immunity turns on whether a defendant violated a clearly established right, a "necessary concomitant" to that decision is determining "whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation