Case law

Elaine Thompson v. Ulenzen King

730 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 20, 2013

a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) [whether] the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation." … Therefore, because the constitutional right was clearly established, the district court properly denied Officer King qualified immunity. III.

Sanders v. Howze

177 F.3d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1999

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates clearly established … To overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that the defendants’ conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which

Andres M. Martinez v. G.D. Stanford W. Owen M. Atkinson D. Rockholt J. Stovall

323 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 2003

Martinez’s attorney declares that she assumed that the officers’ motion would be denied because Saucier did not establish the officers’ qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The district court correctly stated the two-part test for qualified immunity announced in Saucier v.

Victor George Bryant v. William R. Muth Gregg Robbins

994 F.2d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 24, 1993

The district court held that Muth and Robbins were not entitled to qualified immunity and that, even though Bryant had no constitutional right to , possess the contraband disks, he did have a clearly established constitutional … Once the defendant raises, a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff carries the burden of showing that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that such law was clearly established when the alleged violation

Izen v. Catalina

382 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 23, 2004

Qualified Immunity The district court offered alternative reasons for holding that Catalina is entitled to qualified immunity. … The second prong of qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine whether the agent’s conduct violated clearly established federal law. Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350 .

Walker v. Schwalbe

112 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 1997

Standard of Review A district court’s ruling that an official’s conduct violated clearly established law so that the official is not entitled to a ruling of qualified immunity prior to trial is reviewed de novo. … Qualified Immunity Even though Walker has established a genuine issue of material fact, the defendants may be protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Nicholas Coffey v. Adam Carroll

933 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 5, 2019

Standard Of Review The qualified immunity doctrine protects public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Alternatively, for purposes of qualified immunity, the officers say it is not clearly established that entry into a misdemeanor-suspect’s home when officers are in hot pursuit constitutes an unreasonable search.

MICHAEL DOLINSKI v. BOROUGH OF WATCHUNG (L-1080-19, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2022

Plaintiff argues the motion judge erred in granting defendant Cina qualified immunity. Citing Morillo v. … State, 230 N.J. 84, 98 (2017) (holding a governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is established that a clearly established constitutional right was violated).

Berkley Specialty Insurance Company v. Masterforce Construction Corp.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2021

judgment on the pleadings.27 Berkley asserts that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as, for five reasons, it owed no duty to indemnify Masterforce.28 First, Berkley contends that Masterforce’s conduct does not qualify … Galloway, 483 F.3d 258, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that, under the qualified immunity standard, a constitutional right is not clearly established when there are “conflicting decisions” in that area); Soares v.

Wilson v. Falk

877 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 19, 2017

DISCUSSION Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established

Ziccardi v. City Of Philadelphia

288 F.3d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2002

The individual defendants asserted the defense of qualified immunity, but the district court refused to grant summary judgment on that ground. … a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. 4 See Eddy v.

Rex Chappell v. R. Mandeville

706 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

We hold that both Mandeville and Rosario are entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time Chappell was on contraband watch did not clearly establish that their actions were unconstitutional. … Whether qualified immunity applies thus “turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Messerschmidt v.

Jeremy Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wi

836 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2016

In  addition  to  being  a  defense,  however,  sovereign  immunity, like qualified immunity, also bears the character‐ istics  of  “immunity  from  trial  and  the  attendant  burdens  of  litigation.” Abelesz v.  … Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009)  (qualified immunity “is both a defense to liability and a lim‐ ited  entitlement  not  to  stand  trial  or  face  the  other  burdens  of litigation.”). 

Shafer v. County of Santa Barbara

868 F.3d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 2017

The panel nevertheless held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time the incident occurred, the law was not clearly established that an officer cannot progressively increase his use of force … Prong Two: Clearly Established Law Deputy Padilla may nonetheless be entitled to a qualified immunity defense if Shafer’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time Deputy Padilla committed the

John Dukeman, II v. Dylon Wyatt

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2026

Once qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the law confirming his constitutional right was clearly established. Hanson, as Trustee for Layton v. … Trooper Wyatt is entitled to qualified immunity on Dukeman’s claim that he violated a clearly established right by not issuing a canine warning prior to the sheriff’s deputy’s decision to deploy his police canine.

Doninger v. Niehoff

642 F.3d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 25, 2011

established, we affirm the district court’s decision on the ground that 9 Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … issue was clearly 13 established in certain respects.”

Opinion No. (2005)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 3, 2005

clearly established law"). … Individual District Directors would enjoy qualified immunity that "shields public officials from suit insofar as the official's conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Ben Kalka v. Kathleen Hawk,appellees

215 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 2000

II A Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time of their actions … B To repeat, qualified immunity shields these defendants from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time of

United States v. Crawford

520 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2008

Under the modified categorical approach, the prior offense may qualify as a career offender predicate offense if “ ‘documentation or judicially noticeable facts ... clearly establish that the conviction is a predicate conviction … “The government has the burden to establish clearly and unequivocally that the conviction was based on all of the elements of a qualifying predicate offense.” Kovac, 367 F.3d at 1119 .

Jamel Walker v. James H. Gomez Kingston W. Prunty R.R. Rath, Correctional Sergeant

370 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2004

Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 6 Under Saucier v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), we undertake a two-step inquiry in determining whether qualified immunity applies.