Case law

John Mclaughlin v. Alex Watson

271 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 20, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732 (1982) (citations omitted)). 21 In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a "clearly established" right. … In the Motion to Dismiss, Stiles clearly asserted a "qualified immunity" defense. App. at 258.

Charles Odom v. Kenan Kaizer

864 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2017

right was so ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct was unlawful.” … established,” fulfilling part of the qualified immunity test.

Armstrong v. City of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

But where, as here, Defendants do not dispute the facts—they claim instead that the alleged facts do not reflect a violation of clearly established law—“a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity . . . is … right was clearly established.”

Caldwell v. LeFaver

928 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 1991

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, social workers are shielded from liability where their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … However, assuming such a right was clearly established in April 1987, we do not think that it vitiates the application of qualified immunity here.

Philip R. Plant v. Morton International, Inc.

212 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2000

The ADA Claim In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Plant must show 1) that he is disabled; 2) that he is otherwise qualified for his previous position with Morton, with or without reasonable … Although the evidence did not clearly indicate that Plant’s condition was temporary, Plant was unable to come forward with any evidence that it was permanent, and the mere possibility of recurrence is not sufficient to establish

Michele Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., Ohio

915 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

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 … “To qualify as clearly established, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Kindl v.

Sturdivant v. Fine

22 F.4th 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 7, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for violating statutory or constitutional rights that are not clearly established. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Sch., 321 F.3d 1285, 1288–89 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a teacher was not entitled to qualified immunity from a student’s claim of sexual harassment because the right had been clearly established in employment

Max Ross v. Ed Hinton, Jr.

937 F.2d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 1991

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). 8 Ross argues that the district court erred in finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. We disagree. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (state officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known).

Jerome Yates, Jameela Yates v. City of Cleveland, Sanford L. Currie, Officer

941 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear

Charles Austin v. Redford Township Police Depart

690 F.3d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

Qualified Immunity on Austin’s Excessive Force Claims “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … Page 7 force against a subdued suspect was clearly established.

Rowe v. Schreiber

139 F.3d 1381 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

"For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable … In this case, for qualified immunity not to apply, the right which must be clearly established is some right to have the resources of the public defender's office administratively allocated in a specific manner or the right

Charles Mitchell v. Josh Shearrer

729 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Our second inquiry in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established. Whether the facts alleged support such a claim is a legal question for the court to decide.

Charles Mozzochi v. Richard S. Borden, Jr., Paul J. Gibbons, Richard S. Borden, Jr., Paul J. Gibbons, Town of Glastonbury

959 F.2d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 1992

Because the district court framed the qualified immunity question too generally, it wrongly concluded that the defendant officials’ alleged actions violated clearly established constitutional rights. … Because it held that the defendants’ motive and conduct, if proven, violated clearly established rights, the district court rejected the defendants’ summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity.

Coollick v. Hughes

699 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 24, 2012

-1- Plaintiff-Appellee’s clearly established rights. Defendant-Appellant is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that Hughes’s conduct in this case, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Coollick, did not violate Coollick’s clearly established rights. Hughes is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Camilo-Robles v. Hoyos

151 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 22, 1998

When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a section 1983 action, the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate's actions violated a clearly established constitutional … Responding to these allegations, each defendant claims qualified immunity and, because both the rights in question and each defendant's susceptibility to supervisory liability are clearly established, these qualified immunity

Jeffrey Queen v. City of Bowling Green

956 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2020

“Clearly established” means that the “factual context of the occurrence must not exemplify a ‘legally uncertain environment’ in which qualified official immunity is appropriate.” Id. … Kentucky’s “clearly established” requirement tracks the same standards used to determine if a statutory or constitutional right is “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer has federal qualified

Henderson v. Harris County

51 F.4th 125 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 12, 2022

But unpublished opinions “do not establish any binding law for the circuit,” so “they cannot be the source of clearly established law for the qualified immunity analysis.” Marks v. … This court denied the officer qualified immunity.

Pablo F. Maldonado v. Unnamed

648 F. App'x 939 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2016

Finally, he contended the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, because he had shown they violated his clearly established constitutional rights. … He further asserts the judge erroneously applied a heightened standard of proof concerning the clearly established law prong of the qualified-immunity defense.

Robert Kerman v. The City of New York, Daniel Dilucia, William Crossan, John Hume, Thomas Loomis, Steve Kaminski, Mark Demarco, Andrew Oberfeldt, James Moran, Edward Joergens, "John Doe", "Richard Roe", "Jane Doe", (The Last Three Names Being Fictitious, Said Individuals Being Employees of the City of New York Who Participated in Taking Robert Kerman, Into Custody or in Dispatching Police Officers to Robert Kerman's Home or Operating the City's Emergency Medical Service 911 System as Set Forth in the Complaint)

261 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 26, 2001

Qualified immunity will attach to an officer's decision to enter a dwelling in response to perceived exigent circumstances so long as the "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … the warrantless entry in this case was clearly established by October 1995.

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.