Case law

Gabriella Siler v. City of Kenosha, Wisconsin

957 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 29, 2020

Addressing first the claim against Officer Torres, the dis- trict court granted Officer Torres’s motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Siler cannot establish that Officer Torres violated a clearly established right, he is entitled to qualified immunity even if he em- ployed unreasonable force. See Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.

Farmer v. Perrill

275 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 26, 2001

. §2676, 3 and (2) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Jones , 515 U.S. at 313-17 the district court's qualified immunity ruling falls--see, e.g., Medina v. Cram , 252 F.3d 1124, 1130 (10th Cir. 2001).

Askins v. City of New York

727 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 23, 2013

immunity. … Qualified immunity is a defense available only to individuals sued in their 20 individual capacity. “‘[M]unicipalities have no immunity from damages for liability 21 flowing from their constitutional violations.’”

Lloyd D. Alkire v. Judge Jane Irving

305 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2002

According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity, of course, offers no protection for Holmes County. It is well established that municipalities are not entitled to qualified immunity. Russo v. City of Cincinnati 953 F.2d 1036, 1046 (6th Cir.1992).

2554-Cv

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 11, 2016

Without evidence regarding the  11 grounds for Patterson’s decision, we are unable to determine whether his actions were  12 contrary to clearly established law.   … 15 there was no ‘clearly established law’ that such conduct constituted a constitutional  16 violation.”  

Shirley Dahl v. Jim Holley

312 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2002

Qualified Immunity Analysis In considering whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Dahl’s § 1983 claims, we must first determine whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Dahl, establish … If no constitutional violation is established, then the officers prevail, and “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S. Ct. at 2156.

Manetta v. Macomb County Enforcement Team

141 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal laws unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Thus, Kaiser is entitled to qualified immunity from the section 1983 claims of Manetta and Swieezkowski unless, when he acted, the law established the contours of the right allegedly violated so clearly that a reasonable

Gonzalez v. Village of West Milwaukee

671 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

Claims of qualified immunity involve two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a constitu- tional or statutory right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … No. 10-2356 21 clearly established under the state or federal constitu- tions at the time of Gonzalez’s arrests, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Altman v. City Of High Point

330 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 20, 2003

immunity analysis and determine whether the right was clearly established. … It is certainly true that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when he violates clearly established federal law.

Johnson v. Patterson

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 11, 2016

Without evidence regarding the  11 grounds for Patterson’s decision, we are unable to determine whether his actions were  12 contrary to clearly established law.   … 15 there was no ‘clearly established law’ that such conduct constituted a constitutional  16 violation.”  

Porter v. Osborn

546 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 20, 2008

We therefore reverse the court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings. … immunity, finding that the Porters had shown enough to establish the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Robert Stanley Williams v. Samuel P. Collins, Jr.

728 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 1984

Second, Harlow —which relied on Nixon’s jurisdictional analysis to establish its own jurisdiction, Harlow, 102 S.Ct. at 2732 n. 1 —placed great emphasis, in its decision to eliminate the subjective prong of qualified immunity … This distinction between absolute and qualified immunity may well not survive Harlow’s language on the function of qualified immunity.

Cartwright v. Marine City

336 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Rich v. … Because there was no violation, we do not reach the clearly-established prong. D.

Walter E. Edwards v. Veronica Cabrera and Harry T. Redmond

58 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 1995

“Qualified immunity shields [officers] from suit for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [Edwards’ arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.’ ” … In this case, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they had probable cause to arrest Edwards.

Salvador Magluta v. F.P. Sam Samples

375 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2004

conduct was clearly established. … 26 entitled to qualified immunity.

Edinboro College Park Apartments v. Edinboro University Foundation

850 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 2017

But the Court declined to apply ipso facto immunity to the agency: For purposes of Parker, a nonsovereign actor is one whose conduct does not automatically qualify as that of the sovereign State itself … Because plaintiffs’ alleged antitrust injury derives exception is not clearly established. See, e.g., VIBO Corp. v. Conway, 669 F.3d 675, 686–87 (6th Cir. 2012); Hedgecock v.

Patrick McMorrow v. Elaine Little

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that McMorrow's claim must be dismissed. … Again we conclude that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that this conduct was unconstitutional.

John Does 1-5 v. Gretchen Whitmer

69 F.4th 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2023

; and (4) the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiffs’ timely Ex Post Facto Clause claims, but were entitled to qualified immunity as to any First and Fourteenth Amendment violations that were … not clearly established.3 We review grants of motions to dismiss de novo.

Boyce v. Andrew

510 F.3d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

and (2) was that constitutional right clearly established? Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … “The relevant, dispositive inquiry” for determining clearly established law is whether a reasonable government employee’s conduct was clearly unlawful in the situation confronted. Id.

Joseph MacUba v. Matthew Deboer, Michael Youseff, Charlotte Commissioners, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

193 F.3d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 1999

did not violate a clearly established principle of First Amendment law). … In subpart B, we conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the refusal to hire. A.