Case law

Janelle Perez v. City of Roseville

882 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

Clearly Established Law Although Perez’s termination violated her constitutional rights to privacy and intimate association, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established … We reaffirm that, for purposes of qualified immunity, a Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to clearly establish the law within our circuit. See, e.g., Hughes v.

Rebecca Sterling v. Board of Trustees

42 F.4th 901 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 1, 2022

Our review, however, is limited to “abstract issue[s] of law relating to qualified immunity[,] . . . typically[] the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.” Lockridge v. … Based on that context, we construe the statement in Darby about qualified immunity to mean that the FMLA clearly established the violative nature of the particular conduct in that case, not that qualified immunity can never

Hawkins v. State

342 N.C. 188 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1995

William Ashford v. Univ. of Mich.

89 F.4th 960 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2024

immunity because their actions clearly violated Ashford’s well-established constitutional right to free speech. … that Ashford had a clearly established right to exercise his free speech rights without retaliation,” and subsequently denied their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Aspinall v. Thomas

118 F. Supp. 3d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2015

If there was a violation of a constitutional right and the right was clearly established, then qualified immunity does not apply. … have failed to demonstrate that the right was not clearly established, the eourt cannot conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Apodaca v. Raemisch

864 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

Here the district court denied qualified immunity to the warden and director, reasoning that the underlying constitutional right had been clearly established. … Even with this assumption, the warden and director would enjoy qualified immunity because the underlying constitutional right had not been clearly established.

Wendy Browning v. Edmonson Cnty., Ky.

18 F.4th 516 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2021

the right was clearly established.” … To meet the second qualified-immunity element, C.S. next must show that Jones’s use of a taser violated “clearly established” law. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589.

Estate of Leon Walker, Jr. v. Hershell Wallace

881 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2018

An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not .violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … To be clearly established, preexisting law must, make the unlawfulness of the officials’ conduct apparent so .that they have “fair and clear warping” they are violating the constitution; qualified immunity therefore protects

Blake v. Wright

179 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

Alternatively, the majority opinion may imply that the district court in Mitchell could not reach the qualified immunity question because the law with respect to Title III was clearly established, not because qualified immunity … We fail to see the logic of providing a defense of qualified immunity to protect public officials from personal liability when they violate constitutional rights that are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity

Lynda Gaines v. E. Casey Wardynski

871 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2017

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are- immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates clearly established … But, of course, a district court case cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes either. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Lee Cty.

Atwood v. Tullos

312 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 24, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' … For purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, it was clearly established at the time of the incident that a traffic stop must be predicated on reasonable suspicion.

Escobar v. Harris County

442 S.W.3d 621 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 31, 2014

Clearly established law and qualified immunity After Deputy Goodney raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden of persuasion fell on Escobar to negate the defense. See Thomas, 263 S.W.3d at 219 . … If he did, then the clearly established law permits the use of deadly force. If he didn’t, then the clearly established law prohibits it.

Jill Dillard v. Rick Hoyt

961 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 15, 2020

of our sister circuits have denied qualified immunity while finding the right to informational privacy was clearly established. … I fail to see how this is affected by whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of granting qualified immunity.

Sparr v. Ward

306 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 7, 2002

II. 7 Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established. Johnson-El v. … Id. 9 The inquiry "focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official's acts," and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because "a reasonably competent public

Matthews v. Martin

280 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 1983

The legislature promptly enacted Act 165 of 1969 reinstating municipal immunity to tort liability as a matter of public policy. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 12-2901 (Repl. 1979). In Hardin v. … The immunity granted to municipalities extends to the city’s officials and employees. Jones v. Sewer Improvement District No. 3, 119 Ark. 166 , 177 S.W. 888 (1915). Affirmed.

Becker v. Clark

722 So. 2d 232 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 25, 1998

Qualified immunity shields a government actor from personal liability when his conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). … , under the most favorable version of facts alleged, the defendant's action violated clearly established law.

Williams v. Alabama State University

102 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacities who act pursuant to discretionary authority "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... … The question of qualified immunity should be resolved in the defendant's favor on a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Gonzales v. Duran

590 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 22, 2009

Second, the judge could define the clearly established law for the jury. … Second, in deciding whether a right is clearly established, an essential part of the qualified immunity inquiry, a court must assess whether the right was clearly established agaixxst a backdrop of the objective legal reasonableness

Charles Mack v. John Yost

63 F.4th 211 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2023

immunity on the grounds that they did not violate clearly established rights. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished courts not to define rights too broadly when determining whether law was “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Culbreath v. Block

799 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 1986

Federal executive branch officials enjoy qualified immunity from suits for constitutional violations to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established law.” Mitchell v. … Rather, qualified immunity will be forfeited only when at the time of the conduct in question it is clearly established that plaintiffs have the particular constitutional right and that the statutory and regulatory provisions