Case law

Shaw v. District of Columbia

944 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2013

The USMS defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of the searches violated a clearly established constitutional right.25 (USMS Mem. at 15.) … Conboy, Kates and Quicksey all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of these actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Moon v. Brown

939 F. Supp. 2d 1329 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 29, 2013

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … This law was clearly established by the Supreme Court well before the October 10, 2010 seizure. 56 Therefore, Mayor Brown had “fair warning,” and is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment

Greenaway v. County of Nassau

97 F. Supp. 3d 225 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Garcia, 43 F.Supp.3d at 289 . … .-, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (noting that courts evaluating qualified immunity must “draw[] inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when ... a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the

Bosteder v. City of Renton

117 P.3d 316 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

This suggests the law was clearly established at the time the current warrant was sought and the defendants would not have been entitled to qualified immunity. … However, I disagree the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not violate a "clearly established" right.

ESTATE OF GAITHER EX REL. GAITHER v. District of Columbia

655 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law.”

Longoria v. State of Texas

473 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2006

DISCUSSION Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Officer Glass’s conduct thus did not violate clearly established law at the time of the attack and entitled her to qualified immunity. C.

Dehne v. City of Reno

222 F. App'x 560 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

In this appeal, Dehne objects to the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Griffin. 1 Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity for acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights of … If an official “could have believed, ‘reasonably but mistakenly ... that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,’ ” then qualified immunity applies. Skoog v.

Hilliard v. City & County of Denver

930 F.2d 1516 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 1991

This case is an appeal by defendant police officers from the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the law controlling their actions was not clearly established, and that they therefore had qualified immunity from suit. 1 The district court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s

Lewis v. City of Edmond

48 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 16, 2022

immunity.” … immunity, Plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating the constitutional violation was clearly established on the date of the incident, April 29, 2019. 2 See Estate of Smart v.

Brigitte Wright v. Tony E. Sims

417 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which … If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Pribula v. Wyoming Area School District

599 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity “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 … Each of the individual Defendants in this case is entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Anderson v.

Brown v. Pepe

42 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 2014

any of Brown’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Darrell Siggers-El v. David Barlow

412 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2005

The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that it was not clearly established that 1) a prisoner engages in protected conduct when he complains about a prison officer’s failure to … The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Defendant Barlow qualified immunity.

Prisma Zona Exploratoria De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderon

154 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 14, 2001

Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity grounds. The motion to dismiss stands submitted. … Determination of whether a reasonable official should have understood that a specific conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, or whether an entity is to be considered an “arm of the state”, are fact intensive

Weldeyohannes v. State of Washington

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct objectively violates clearly established rights. Harlow v. … impact whether the “unlawfulness . . . was clearly established at the time,” we reverse and remand the determinations of qualified immunity. 6 Id.

Bailey v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 69 of Canadian Cnty. Okla.

896 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 24, 2018

Nonetheless, we affirm the district court's grant of qualified immunity to school superintendent Sean McDaniel because the law was not previously clearly established on this issue. … We AFFIRM the district court's conclusion that McDaniel is entitled to qualified immunity, on the alternative ground that the law at issue was not clearly established at the time he violated it.

Heyne v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

686 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 3, 2009

Defendants argue that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of Christian Heyne, that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Defendant Metro cannot be liable because … Qualified Immunity 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

Parks v. City of Brewer

56 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity To assess a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine (i) whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, and (ii) whether a reasonable, similarly situated defendant … When the existence of a constitutional right rests solely on the outcome of a balancing test, many courts have determined that the right generally is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Bryson v. Gonzales

534 F.3d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 28, 2008

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … The only issues that properly belong in an interlocutory appeal for qualified immunity are the existence of a constitutional violation and whether it was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Habiger v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 23, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official *717 from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that his or her conduct violates that particular right because the contours of the right are sufficiently clear.