Case law

Torres v. City of Madera

648 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2011

Qualified Immunity We must next consider whether Officer Noriega is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged unlawfulness of her conduct was not clearly established as of October 27, 2002, for the “inquiries … The district court nonetheless determined Officer Noriega was entitled to qualified immunity because the law in 2002 did not clearly establish that an unreasonable mistaken use of force violated the Fourth Amendment.

Mason ex rel. Marson v. Vasquez

5 F.3d 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 1993

In so doing, the court placed more weight oh the deficiencies in Attorney Marson’s proof establishing ineompetency than on the government’s proof establishing competency.

SIMS EX REL. SIMS v. Glover

84 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 9, 1999

Second, Defendants contend that, because Sims has not alleged deprivations of clearly established constitutional rights, they are immune from suit under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. (Mem. at 3.) … Similarly, “[u]nder the qualified immunity defense, the defendants are immune from liability if [Sims’ Amended Complaint] fails to state a violation of a ‘clearly established ... constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable

Wachtler v. County of Herkimer

35 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 9, 1994

We have held that the Fourth Amendment proscription of strip-searches of misdemean- or arrestees without reasonable suspicion is clearly enough established to preclude the defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, the individual defendants involved in the strip-search are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 Herkimer County, however, does not have qualified immunity, Owen v.

Todero v. Blackwell

383 F. Supp. 3d 826 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 28, 2019

Because Officer *833 Blackwell relies on qualified immunity and the parties focus on whether his actions violated clearly established law, the Court exercises its discretion to begin with that prong of the qualified-immunity … Todero and (2) are regardless entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established right. Dkt. 116 at 19, 25. Ms.

George Rakovich v. Gregory Wade and Darryl Drake, George Rakovich v. Chester Kass

850 F.2d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1988

The parameters of the argument were clearly set: does a police officer in this situation enjoy a qualified immunity? … Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners, 747 F.2d 139, 148 (3d Cir.1984) (no qualified immunity if the defendant violated “a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a

Williams v. Bitner

455 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his "clearly established" rights. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir.1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.

David Glen Meyers v. Contra Costa County Department of Social Services, Defendants

812 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 1987

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, executive officers are shielded from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Haaland’s conduct on October 23, which indisputably involved no physical interference with parental custody, cannot be said to have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Collymore v. Commissioner of D.O.C.

74 F.4th 22 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 14, 2023

But qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary 18 acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The right to be free from such a condition is clearly established.

Sherelle Thomas v. City of Harrisburg

88 F.4th 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 6, 2023

The court rejected the Officers’ claims of qualified immunity because it found that Sherelle Thomas alleged sufficient facts to state her claims and both rights were clearly established at the time of the violations. … Clearly Established Right However, before the Officers can be denied qualified immunity from being sued for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the constitutional right violated must be clearly established

Rodriques v. Furtado

410 Mass. 878 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 12, 1991

Qualified immunity. We consider first whether Furtado and Dr. Falkoff are immunized from liability as matter of law. We conclude that they are immunized. … While the plaintiff is correct when she argues that the Aguilar-Spinelli requirements were clearly established at the time Furtado applied for the warrant, that is not sufficient to preclude Furtado from using a qualified

JACKMON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 4, 2025

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because no law clearly established that designating NOGE a STG violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (See id.) … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Manganiello v. City of New York

612 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 2010

Only the third aspect of the qualified immunity doctrine was genuinely at issue in the present case, for “[fjreedom from malicious prosecution is a constitutional right that has long been clearly established.” Kinzer v. … Although a mere mistake in the performance of an official duty may not deprive the officer of qualified immunity, the doctrine does not shield performance that either (a) was in violation of clearly established law, or (b

Hammond v. Kunard

148 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 11, 1998

Qualified Immunity The appellants next argue that them actions are protected by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields officials who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Arlington Professional Fire Fighters International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 1329 David Crow, Shawn Graham, Joseph Markham, Edward Montague, Matthew Throne, and Adrian Rojas v. City of Arlington, Texas City of Arlington, Texas, City Council City of Arlington, Texas, Civil Service Commission Jim Ross, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Arlington Helen Moise, in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the City of Arlington, Texas, City Council Ralph Gonzalez, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the City of Arlington, Texas, City Council Nikkie Hunter, in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the City of Arlington, Texas, City Council

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Sep 16, 2021

It is not clearly established whether Burlington’s “materially adverse” standard applies to retaliation for protected speech. See Gibson . . . , 734 F.3d [at] 401 n.4 . . . … Saunders, 588 F.3d 282, 288 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding that the application of Burlington to First Amendment retaliation is not “clearly established”)[, abrogated on other grounds by Sims v.

Megenity v. Stenger

27 F.3d 1120 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 1994

When an official is cloaked with absolute immunity, it is not necessary to determine whether the plaintiff has a clearly established legal right because, even if he does, no relief is forthcoming. *1124 In the qualified immunity … analysis, however, we first look to see if the plaintiff has a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Marie Woolfolk, Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Rahmal Woolfolk Leroy and Marie Woolfolk v. Darren Smith City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas

81 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 12, 1996

The Supreme Court narrowed our jurisdiction to hear interlocutory qualified immunity appeals when it limited such appeals to a district court’s “determination about pre-existing ‘clearly established’ law.” Johnson v. … We conclude that the Woolfolks’ failure-to-train claim against the City is not “inextricably intertwined” with Smith’s claim of qualified immunity.

Renay Hunter v. The District of Columbia

943 F.2d 69 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 30, 1991

clearly established at the time of the alleged beating in 1986. … Because Hunter’s complaint alleges conduct coming between Norris and Martin , his claim is subject to the officer’s substantively distinct qualified immunity defense that arises from the change in the “clearly established

P.B., on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of N.B., a Minor S.G., on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of L.G., a Minor C.D., on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of D.D. v. Alfred Koch, Principal of Preston High School, and Scott Beckstead Mary Jo Roberts George Wilcox Orson Bowler

96 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 1996

III 18 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity "requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?

Qaid Rafeeq Azeez and Abdullah Muhammad v. James W. Fairman, Warden, John E. Wright, Asst. Warden, and A. Dodge, 120 (c.o.)

795 F.2d 1296 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 1986

The only question is whether they violated any clearly established federal constitutional right. … The words “clearly established ... constitutional rights” may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedient of stating constitutional rights in the most general possible terms