Case law

Vanderklok v. United States

140 F. Supp. 3d 373 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2015

Even if the Individual Officers lacked probable cause to arrest Vanderklok, they would be protected by qualified immunity because they did not violate a right that was “clearly established.” … This is not so clearly established as to override the Individual Officers’ qualified immunity.

Session v. Wargo

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 12, 2021

rights that (1) were “clearly 9 established” at the time of the conduct, and (2) would have been known to a reasonable person in the official’s position … be undertaken and qualified immunity is appropriate).

Coffin v. Brandau

597 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

Drawing on that precedent, we analyze whether the Deputies violated the Coffins’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and conclude that because they did not, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door. 15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.” McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249 .

Williams v. Morgan

710 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 1989

Under the objective standard, the immunity defense is unavailable to the defendant “if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] challenged conduct, if [he] knew or … The question becomes, therefore, whether he forfeited that immunity if he engaged in conduct which he knew or should have known would infringe a “clearly established” constitutional right enjoyed by the plaintiff.

Leon Washington and Clara Washington v. James Haupert, Joel Slygh and Fred Rogers

481 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was clearly established, the government actor is not entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure.

Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex.

565 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2009

in their judicial capacities when they established and implemented the appointment policy and denied Davis’s application; (2) that the defendant judges were immune from suit in their official capacities under the Eleventh … The 2001 amendment established a much more detailed procedural regime for the appointment of counsel in criminal cases that requires judges in each county to establish standardized countywide procedures.

Marcelino Alvarez-Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, C.J. Nichols, In His/Her Individual and Official Capacity, and Waterloo Police Department

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 6, 2023

First, Iowa Code section 670.4A(1)(a) (2022) provides qualified immunity to employees or officers subject to claims arising under the IMTCA: 1. … The right, privilege, or immunity secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation the state of the law was not sufficiently clear

Misty Kingsland v. City of Miami

382 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly 11 We recall that probable cause requires that “‘ … “Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id.

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.

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

Doe v. Hazard

152 F. Supp. 3d 859 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 15, 2016

The -plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, O’Malley v. … The Court also finds no binding case law that any of Simpson’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Supreme Video, Inc. v. Schauz

808 F. Supp. 1380 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 14, 1992

On the other hand, there is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated “a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new factual wrinkle.” … immunity defense, Supreme Video must show that the defendants’ conduct violated certain constitutional rights that were clearly and particularly established at the time of the seizure.

Cooper v. Brunswick County Sheriff's Department

896 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2012

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Aguirre v. City of San Antonio

995 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether . . . the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (citing Hope v.

Erin Bulfin v. Becky Rainwater

104 F.4th 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 17, 2024

immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established. … Bulfin also argues the district court erred in ruling that the individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not a clearly established right.

Mesa v. Prejean

543 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 2008

Because of that uncertainty, we must take the next sequential step in qualified immunity analysis and ask whether “a reasonably competent officer would not have known his actions violated then-existing clearly established … Tarazona “must show that the legality of her conduct was clearly established.” Id.

Barry v. Whalen

796 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 22, 1992

Determination of a federal official’s entitlement to the protection offered by qualified immunity involves an inquiry into whether the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Under this standard, Barry could prove that an official has violated his rights, but the defendants could nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those rights were not clearly established or if a reasonable person

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.

Breuder v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 502

888 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 unless they transgress clearly established law. See, e.g., Kisela v. … The members who refused even to listen to him violated his clearly established rights.

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.