Clearly established definition
Clearly established means that the statutory or constitutional question was “beyond
Clearly established means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’ is unlawful.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, U.S. , , 138 S. Ct. 577, 589, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 (2018) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731,
Clearly established means that, at the time of the [official’s] conduct, the law was ‘“sufficiently clear” that every “reasonable official would understand that what he is doing”’ is unlawful.” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). Thus, “[i]t is not enough that the rule is suggested by then-existing precedent.” Id. Instead, “[t]he precedent must be clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” Id. “In other
Examples of Clearly established in a sentence
I feel I have been adversely affected by the misapplication of: Memorandum of Understanding (Title and Article): Ordinance (Section): Resolution (Number and Date): Written Policy (Attach a Copy) Management Directive (Attach a Copy) Administrative Order (Attach a Copy) Clearly established lawful past practice.
Clearly established procedures, forms, and protocol will be utilized to ensure that the Vassar Building Department functions as a single efficient unit.
More Definitions of Clearly established
Clearly established means that the state courts have more “leeway” as to what is an
Clearly established means that, at the time of the officer's conduct, the law was 'sufficiently clear' that every 'reasonable official would understand that what [they are] doing' is unlawful." Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
Clearly established means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’ is unlawful.” (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). The majority ignores this pertinent question3 and diverts attention to a case about officers “deliberately withhold[ing] exculpatory information from prosecutors.” Maj. Op. 22. But the majority does not cite a shred of evidence to suggest any of the defendants withheld exculpatory information from the state or federal prosecutors here. The majority relies solely on (1) a form showing that, two weeks after the state indictment, the charging officer delivered the entire investigative file regarding Harris and his codefendants to the state prosecutor, and
Clearly established means that the "contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. The defendant's acts are held to be objectively reasonable unless all reasonable officials in the defendant's circumstances would have then known that the defendant's conduct violated the United States Constitution or the federal statute as alleged by the plaintiff. Id. at 3040; Malleyv. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271
Clearly established means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently
Clearly established means that the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that
Clearly established means that, at the time of the officer’s or official’s conduct, the law was “‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’” is unlawful. See Ashcroft v. al- Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)).