Case law

Ben Krein v. Larry Norris

250 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 2001

established right. … violated established law.

Williams v. Alhambra School District No. 68

234 F. Supp. 3d 971 · District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 13, 2017

The Board member Defendants are therefore entitled only to qualified immunity. … As discussed above, Williams has “adequately allegefd] the commission of acts that violated clearly established law,” as she must to defeat qualified immunity at this stage of litigation. See Mitchell v.

Hollowell v. Gravett

703 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 19, 1988

In the alternative, Givens claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity in that he was not violating clearly established law. In Imbler v. … a defense of qualified immunity.

Diaz v. Bullock

268 F. Supp. 3d 640 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 2017

The basis for the Court’s finding as' to qualified immunity is that to the extent there is a constitutional right at issue, it is not clearly established. … As a result, and at a minimum, the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right is not clearly established.

Barajas v. Waters

815 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 11, 1993

Qualified Immunity In their motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

Estate of Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Under Harlow , government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two pronged inquiry: “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v.

Gunter v. Morrison

497 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2007

The question is whether this right was clearly established. … This right was clearly established. See, e.g., Zar v. S.D.

Winfield v. Bass

67 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 25, 1995

Addressing the qualified immunity defense, the court opined that the constitutional right concededly implicated by Winfield’s factual assertions in his complaint and responsive affidavit was “clearly established” at the time … Here, as indicated, the district court expressly ruled in its memorandum opinion that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the critical time.

Allen v. Sakai

48 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

established constitutional rights, *1086 defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity.

Christensen v. Quinn

45 F. Supp. 3d 1043 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 10, 2014

Because the reconstructed affidavit did not establish probable cause, Quinn is not entitled to qualified immunity on that basis. *1081 Quinn argues that she relied on the advice of Landeen-Hoeke, which should establish that … Even if the court assumes that Landeen-Hoeke is only entitled to qualified immunity for those acts, Christensen would still have the burden of showing that the act in question violated a clearly established constitutional

Valdez v. United States

58 F. Supp. 3d 795 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 7, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 739 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 ). … The Court begins with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Beverly Thompson v. David E. Wagner and Keith Gardner

319 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2003

Qualified immunity shields police officers from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … light of the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and clearly established law, Mrs.

Alva Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, Incorrectly Sued as "County of Los Angeles, a Public Entity Porter De Dubovay John W. Bunnett and Russell F. Schooling, in Their Capacity as Officials Having Authority to Issue Personnel Rules for Employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District," Alva Gutierrez v. Porter De Dubovay John W. Bunnett and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants

838 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 22, 1988

Clearly Established in General 47 In Harlow v. … Qualified immunity is not a defense in such cases.

Blair v. Meade

76 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 1996

Meade has qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis requires consideration of whether a right exists at all, i.e., whether plaintiff has asserted violation of a right, and whether that right was clearly established. • The motivation question

Murchison v. County of Tehama

California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2021

violated clearly established law. … Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1433, fn. 6), and “we may consider such decisions when determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis

Jones v. Lopez

262 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 31, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants raise for the first time in their Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment the defense of official or qualified immunity. … Here, defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense but have not pleaded good faith or established they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority.

Wilson v. City of Des Moines

160 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Jul 25, 2001

Katz, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (June 18, 2001) changed the landscape of qualified immunity. … Second, if a violation is established, courts are to determine whether the right was clearly established “on a more specific level than recognized by the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals.” Id. at 2155.

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. The Township Of Warrington, Pa

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials' "conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we ask: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Vaughan v. Cox

316 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

immunity. … We reinstate our prior decision in its entirety and supplement, by this opinion, our previous discussion of qualified immunity. SO ORDERED. .

Joseph Carl Brown v. Joseph Ponte

842 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 14, 1988

As a result, the qualified immunity defense is available to appellants. … If the law at the time of appellants’ actions was not “clearly established,” they could not have “known” that their conduct was forbidden. Id.