Case law

Gorman v. Roberts

909 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 1995

However, even disputes over genuine issues of ma *1490 terial fact will not “preclude summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v.

Bowser v. Smith

288 F. Supp. 3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no "clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff's assailant through the prison cell-block." Smith Mot. … "In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish" that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v.

Al-Ra'id v. Ingle

69 F.3d 28 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

In assessing qualified immunity, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, we determine whether a plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under the current state of the law. … Moreover, the defendants’ actions were not violative of clearly established law.

Cannon v. City & County of Denver

998 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1993

Order of Dismissal at 8. ’ The court found that the officers did not act in violation of clearly established law. It therefore concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … established rights as to be entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

Kerr v. Lyford

171 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1999

Moving for summary judgment, Goar, Minshew, Fleig, and Baggs claimed qualified immunity; Lyford asserted absolute and qualified immunity. B. … Thus, to proceed against a defendant claiming qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence and violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the defendant may then show that he was performing

David Ayers v. City of Cleveland

773 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2014

In the qualified-immunity context, an example of a purely legal issue is the determination of “what law was clearly established” at the time of the officials’ conduct. Ortiz, 131 S. Ct. at 891 (quoting Johnson v. … The Sykes court found dispositive the fact that the Rule 50(a) motion never mentioned “qualified immunity” or other terms associated with that defense (e.g., “clearly established law” or “objectively unreasonable actions”

N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police

35 F.4th 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 31, 2022

Rather than denying qualified immunity, as it had done before, the district court determined that there had been no constitutional violation at all, clearly established or otherwise. … The key issue is whether he is entitled to qualified immunity, which depends on how we answer two questions. First, did his actions violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established?

Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green

165 F. Supp. 3d 563 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 24, 2016

Clearly Established Right Defendants, in their Motion for Summary Judgment, assert that Casada is entitled to qualified immunity. … The Pollard court did not address the qualified immunity inquiry of whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. .

Benavidez v. Howard

931 F.3d 1225 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In this motion, Howard asked the state court to prohibit Plaintiffs and others “from engaging in conduct directed at 5 Under the second prong of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that the right was “clearly … Al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 744 (2011) (“Because [the defendant] did not violate clearly established law, we need not address the more difficult question whether he enjoys absolute immunity.”)

Mandel v. O'HARA

320 Md. 103 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 1990

Although the Governor of West Virginia is intimately involved in the state’s budget process, his participation clearly does not qualify for .legislative immunity under Supreme Court of Virginia . … Thus, the Court’s reference to a state’s entire legislative power was simply to point out that the case was clearly one for absolute legislative immunity.

Lopez

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 11, 2025

That 19 conclusion means that the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. 20 In determining whether an officer has qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the 21 officer violated a constitutional … immunity.”

Whalen v. Massachusetts Trial Court

397 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 4, 2005

Moreover, the individual defendants claimed the shield of qualified immunity, arguing that Whalen did not have a clearly established constitutional right to a hearing before a budget-driven termination of his position' — … The “Clearly Established Right” and “Reasonableness” It is beyond debate that, as a general matter, the constitutional right to due process claimed by Whalen was clearly established at the time he was laid off.

Rodis v. City and County of San Francisco

499 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2007

The *1097 court also found Barry and Liddicoet not entitled to qualified immunity because the illegality of the arrest was clearly established at the time. II. DISCUSSION A. … Defendants are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves as a defense to § 1983 claims against government officers “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

May v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

59 F. App'x 786 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 2003

that he had qualified immunity. … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 307 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (“Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary-judgment stage is

Schuler v. City of Boulder

189 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 7, 1999

Quiller and Kotowski filed the instant appeal challenging the district court’s order which denied their qualified immunity defense and held that their actions taken against Schuler violated clearly established constitutional … Spurlock, 798 F.2d 1313, 1318 (10th Cir. 1986), and held that in June 1992, the law was clearly established so as to defeat a qualified immunity defense there.

Horne v. Coughlin

191 F.3d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 25, 1999

was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Because the Ninth Circuit believed this constitutional right was already clearly established, it had denied qualified immunity. See id. at 1712 .

Handmaker v. Henney

128 N.M. 328 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1999

resolution of the Essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.’ ” Carrillo, 114 N.M. at 615 , 845 P.2d at 138 (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct … 23(A), our review by writ of error is necessarily limited by the nature of immunity established by the Legislature.

McIntosh v. Weinberger

617 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 24, 1984

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Assuming arguendo, that the law was not clearly established at the time the results of the reconstruction panel were destroyed, defendant Turner’s defense of qualified immunity should be sustained.

Bradford v. County of Oakland

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 9, 2020

B “Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Rather, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Mettler Ex Rel. Burnett v. Nellis

280 Wis. 2d 753 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Mar 22, 2005

We conclude that O'Connor's affidavit is sufficient to qualify her to give her opinions. … containing those opinions should be considered at summary judgment. 5 Nellis does not argue that expert opinion is inappropriate, only that O'Connor's affidavit is insufficient. 6 Nellis argues that O'Connor's affidavit does not establish