Case law

Allen v. Sakai

40 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

Anderson v. Recore

446 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2006

II “[Pjublic officials ... are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then extant … Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Bennett v. Coffman

178 W. Va. 500 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1987

I It has long been established that a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from an assessment of damages against him in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if he acted with a reasonable and good faith belief that … The appellees in this case are therefore immune from damages unless they acted contrary to clearly established law as it existed at the time they entered Mr.

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.

Doan v. Watson

168 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 10, 2001

Qualified immunity Defendants contend that they should enjoy qualified immunity for their administration of the strip-search procedure, pursuant to § 1983. … Officials acting under qualified immunity are not subjected to suit “unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights then known to a reasonable officer.” Ulichny v. Merton Cmty. Sch.

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

El-Amin v. Tirey

817 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 8, 1993

The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Consequently, defendants Ring and Hemby are protected by qualified immunity.

Hepting v. AT & T Corp.

439 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 2006

Qualified immunity shields state actors 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.” … are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity when they violate statutory rights that similarly are not clearly established.”); accord Tapley, 211 F.3d at 1216.

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.

Joann Cavalieri, as Plenary Guardian of the Estate of Steven Cavalieri, a Disabled Person v. Donald Shepard

321 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2003

asserting was not clearly established at the time of these events. … Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 406 (7th Cir.1992), was clearly established prior to 1998.

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.

Kitt v. Bailey

676 F. App'x 350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2017

Because McCreary invoked the defense of qualified immunity, Kitt must also negate that defense by pleading facts to show a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time of the incident and that, in light of … that clearly established law, the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable.

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.

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

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.

Dormu v. District of Columbia

795 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.