Case law

Evans v. City of Zebulon

351 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because as of January 22, 1999, the law was not clearly established that an arrestee could not constitutionally be strip searched under the conditions alleged. … Only decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court of the relevant state clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1032 n. 10. .

O'CONNELL v. Gorski

715 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 14, 1989

immunity from liability for civil damages inasmuch as their decision to dismiss the plaintiff did not violate any of his “clearly established” rights. 4 Harlow v. … It merely supports the con- *1206 elusion that the law was in fact not clearly established at the time of his dismissal and that, therefore, Gorski and NeMoyer are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages.

White v. City of Lagrange

952 F. Supp. 2d 1353 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 3, 2013

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … White has failed to point to particularized case law showing that the right was clearly established.

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.

Entergy, Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska

241 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2001

a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 The Generators and USE respond that qualified immunity is not available to the officials in their individual capacities because clearly established federal law was violated, that … Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Tinsley v. Pittari

952 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. … To the extent the claim is so construed, defendants’ previously-established entitlement to qualified immunity is applicable. The outcome is the same under a Fourteenth Amendment analysis.

Williams v. Lopes

64 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 1999

Assuming this case involves clearly established rights, the entitlement to qualified immunity generally turns on the particular facts of a case. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d *42 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987). … The evidence before the Court clearly establishes that plaintiff cannot recall the events with any accuracy.

Carolyn Arnett v. Larry Norris

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials and officers from § 1983 claims when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) the presented facts “make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and (2) “that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant[s’] alleged

Horwitz v. State Board of Medical Examiners of State of Colorado

822 F.2d 1508 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 7, 1987

or qualified immunity. … Horwitz's license and refused to reinstate it until May 1, 1984, they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of due process. Dr.

Singleton v. Doe

210 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2016

Defendants also argue that, irrespective of Plaintiffs liberty interest, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and not in violation of a clearly established right. (Id. at 8.) … Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

David v. Giurbino

488 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 16, 2007

“Clearly Established” Law The second prong of Saucier asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Because Plaintiff has not shown the violation of a clearly established right under RLUIPA, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claims for damages.

Simmons v. Poe

47 F.3d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 1, 1995

to qualified immunity. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one “clearly established,” or that, though “clearly established” (and violated), it was one that a “

William Cass v. City of Dayton

770 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2014

In the alternative, the district court held that House was entitled to qualified immunity because Jordan’s constitutional rights were not clearly established. … There are two general steps to the qualified immunity analysis.

David Wadkins v. Robert Arnold, and the First Bank & Trust Company

214 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 2000

Second, even if the arrest of Wadkins violated a clearly established constitutional right, Detective Arnold maintains that he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably; that is, a reasonable … See Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 316 (“[T]he most obvious possibility [of exceptional circumstances supporting qualified immunity despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right] is mistaken official advice

Carroll v. Lancaster Cnty.

301 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

The Court went on to explain that neither Colburn I nor Colburn II clearly established such a right. Id. at 2045 . … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil *513 damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

John Schleck and Robert Kraft v. Ramsey County, Suzanne Alliegro, Michael Moriarity and Kathleen Mahoney

939 F.2d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

“Whether an official may prevail in [her] qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ... … No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v.

Motley v. Parks

432 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

If the right was hot clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields the officer from further litigation. Id. … Qualified Immunity Having determined that Motley’s factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to evaluating whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer

Washpon v. Parr

561 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2008

unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … If it was not reasonable, then for purposes of determining qualified immunity we next ask the purely legal question of whether the law was sufficiently established that a reasonable officer would know his conduct was unlawful

Courtney Richmond v. City of Brooklyn

490 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … Therefore, we proceed directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the asserted constitutional right was clearly established.

Shultz v. Sundberg

577 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 13, 1984

Defendants Sundberg, Vaden, Mix, Sheffield, Gorsuch and Hickey’s Motion for Summary Judgment — Qualified Immunity. … Under the test for official immunity, as modified by Harlow , on a motion such as this for summary judgment, the court may determine, “not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at