Case law

Lunini v. Grayeb

395 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2005

Appellants now appeal that ruling on the narrow question whether Lunini's equal protection rights were indeed "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time of the alleged incident. I. … The appellants' appeal now comes before this Court, presenting a single narrow legal issue: whether the district court erred in ruling that Lunini's equal protection rights were "clearly established" for qualified immunity

James King v. United States

917 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If a jury were to credit Plaintiff's testimony, then neither Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because any reasonable officer would have known, based on clearly established law, that applying force-tackling Plaintiff

Melanie Kelsay v. Matt Ernst

905 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 27, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under § 1983 if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The district court rejected Ernst's defense of qualified immunity.

Bailey v. United States Marshal Service

584 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

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

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

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.

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

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.”

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.

Duaut A. Duamutef v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, and P. Almstead

297 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 18, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … And because we conclude that there was no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co.

439 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 2006

specific,” and therefore our rejection of qualified immunity in that case was “based on clearly and narrowly articulated Fourth Amendment principles.” … The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers on both claims.

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

Williams v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENN.

586 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 18, 2008

If the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, the second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the violated right was clearly established. Id. … was clearly established); Boger 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.

Kristine Williams v. MO Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Further, they assert that Williams failed to plausibly allege a violation of a clearly established right because the clearly established right is one to be protected from the known risks of suicide, and Loflin, Yount, and … , ‘whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.’”

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.

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.”

Savage v. State

127 Wash. 2d 434 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1995

I Qualified Personal Immunity In Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992), we held that parole officers have qualified immunity for allegedly negligent supervision of parolees who harm third parties. … agent enjoys qualified personal immunity.

Young v. Keohane

809 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

In some cases, the qualified immunity issue may also turn on “the complementary question whether defendant had a clearly established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v. … What is “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes, however, commands only some, “not precise factual correspondence between relevant precedents and the conduct at issue.” Ryan, 860 F.2d at 1208 .