Case law

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

Fultz v. Whittaker

261 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 2, 2003

Defendants argue that this evidence establishes that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiffs remaining claims. … The final steps in the qualified immunity analysis require the Court to determine whether the right Whittaker allegedly violated was a “clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

Darryl Lunon v. Kathy Botsford

946 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

Discussion Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … I agree with the court insofar as it holds that the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established right of appellee Lunon.

Isaacs v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, et al.

2018 DNH 096 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 15, 2018

“Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct 21 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Cahill is entitled to qualified immunity. In Foster v.

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

Robin Hill v. Kevin McKinley

311 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 26, 2002

Although we conclude that the facts establish a constitutional violation, we believe the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their actions did not violate clearly established law. … Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 759-60 , 107 S.Ct. 2672 , 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987) (qualified immunity dismissal of § 1983 claim where constitutional violation found but right was not clearly established precludes § 1988 award of attorney

Torres v. City of Madera

655 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 18, 2009

Defendant Noriega is entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning when weapon confusion would violate the Fourth Amendment was not clearly established at the time of the October 27, 2002 shooting. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Taylor v. City of Shreveport

653 So. 2d 232 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1995

Further, the court found that the officers enjoyed qualified immunity because *236 their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional principle which a reasonable person would have known." … . § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

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

Dennis J. Domegan v. Michael v. Fair

859 F.2d 1059 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 20, 1988

The defense is unavailable when an official has violated a “clearly established” right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … If plaintiff’s right to be free from the claimed harm was clearly established — and in this case, we think that is so — then the defendants do not enjoy Harlow immunity. See, e.g., Bonitz, 804 F.2d at 166-68 .

Beard v. Whitmore Lake School District

402 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2005

denied the teachers’ request for qualified immunity. … Conclusion Because the searches in this case did not violate clearly established law, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The denial of summary judgment is accordingly REVERSED.

Karla Kaye Kuehl v. Stephen P. Burtis Terry Satterlee Other John Doe City of Sioux Falls Ezekial James McBeth

173 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 29, 1999

We reject this challenge, but we must first establish our jurisdiction to hear the case. When a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity turns upon an issue of law, it is an appealable “final decision.” … In determining whether the district court should have granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we must consider whether Kuehl has alleged a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and whether

Aitken v. Reed

89 Wash. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity for Section 1983 Property Interest Claim The State contends that even if Reed failed to provide Aitken a hearing as required by due process, she is protected by qualified immunity. … She is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Aitken’s due process claim.

Reed v. Kemper

673 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

In this court Reed contends that Kemper is not entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that Turner clearly establishes that the rationale articulated in Kemper’s affidavit is not related to peno-logical objectives. … Michelle Bones, however, is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established law. Complaint examiners follow the law so long as they do their job in examining complaints in good faith.

Graham v. Nadeau, et al.

2009 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 9, 2009

A court ordinarily may move directly to the second step in the analysis and award qualified immunity if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the right on which his claim is based was clearly established when the defendants … Thus, Loven is entitled to qualified immunity for the same reason as Nadeau.

Abilio Hernandez v. Jason Boles

949 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2020

We therefore turn to whether the law was clearly established. 2. Clearly Established Right This brings us to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … But, to overcome qualified immunity, the clearly established law must be specific enough “to put a reasonable officer on notice that the conduct at issue was unconstitutional.” Lewis, 779 F.3d at 417.

Fairchild v. Coryell Cty

40 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2022

IV The jailers, however, can assert qualified immunity. They are liable for unlawful conduct only if their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. Pearson v. … Timpa, 20 F.4th at 1028–29 (explaining that qualified immunity may provide a defense at the early stages of an encounter but not later stages when the continued use of force violates clearly established law); Aguirre

Belanger v. City of Hartford

578 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 19, 2008

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … most favorable to the Plaintiff, could conclude that the defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Estate of Fortunato Ex Rel. Fortunato v. Handler

969 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1996

Qualified Immunity Generally, governmental officials carrying out discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Under any of the panel members’ views expressed in City of Philadelphia, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the use of deadly force, which did not violate the “clearly established law”

Lee v. Young

533 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

A two-part test is used to ascertain whether qualified immunity exists. First, the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Triad Associates, Inc. v. … Since this right was clearly established in 1998-1999, it was also clearly established during the relevant period of time here, 2001-2002.