Case law

32 Fair empl.prac.cas. 747, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,753 Lino Martinez, Cross-Appellant v. El Paso County, Cross-Appellee

710 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 1983

The court below correctly concluded that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination. … The foregoing excerpt clearly reveals the error in defendant’s argument.

Acre v. Chambers

129 F. Supp. 3d 1295 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 8, 2015

The Supreme Court has disavowed a generalized approach to what is clearly established law in the qualified immunity context. *1311 We have repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of … Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if “clearly established” law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Sheehan , — U.S. at -, 135 S.Ct. at 1775-76.

Arlean Brown v. Brian Elliot

876 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 21, 2017

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.” Mullenix v. … The Supreme Court has emphasized “the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. Id.

Wilson v. City of Boston

421 F.3d 45 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 31, 2005

has shown . . . that a government official may have deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably … in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced."

Charles Daniel Lindsey v. City of Orrick, Missouri, Shirley Taylor

491 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

“Generally, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 when executing discretionary functions, unless the officials violate clearly established law.” Beck, 377 F.3d at 889 . … This court has “taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry.” Sexton, 210 F.3d at 909 (quoting Boswell v.

Cyeef-Din v. Onken

District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 6, 2021

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have been aware. … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (reaffirming that officials acting in discretionary capacities are generally entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law).

Doe v. Schuylkill County Courthouse

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2024

To determine whether an official is entitled qualified immunity, a court must determine (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established. … Pa. 2015) (denying qualified immunity where “the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the right was not clearly established”).

Herrera v. The Village of Angel Fire

District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 5, 2021

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have been aware. … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (reaffirming that officials acting in discretionary capacities are generally entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law).

Harris v. City of Cleveland

7 F. App'x 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a law enforcement official performing a discretionary function may be immune from civil liability in a Bivens action if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In particular, a plaintiff must establish with particularity that a defendant himself has violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right in order to strip that person of the protection of qualified immunity

Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth

436 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2006

Perkins-Auguste as a reasonable public official would have known that her specific conduct violated the Plaintiff's clearly established rights and was not subject to qualified immunity. See Anderson v. … B. 49 The second stage of the qualified immunity analysis is whether, given the existence of a constitutional violation, a reasonable person should have recognized it under "clearly established" law.

Lyttle v. United States

867 F. Supp. 2d 1256 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 2012

Because their alleged conduct violated clearly established law, the Court rejects their qualified immunity defenses. … Battiste, 261 Fed.Appx. at 202-03 (stating that qualified immunity for failure to train is abrogated only where the officer has fair warning of clearly established law). d.

Mwimanzi v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2022

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Turning to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court concludes that there was a robust consensus of authority as of January 2019 to clearly establish that such an excessively forceful and invasive search

Ann B. Lovell, Etc. v. The One Bancorp, Appeal of Frederick W. Pape, Jr.

878 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 22, 1989

Pape, Jr., defendant-appellant, has filed this interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of his claim of qualified immunity. … Among the various arguments advanced in his motion, Pape argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff’s claims.

Spikes v. McVea

8 F.4th 428 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2021

immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law, given that the facts of this case are no more egregious than in Estelle v. … Smith, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority denies officials qualified immunity (“QI”) in defiance of Supreme Court precedent, which clearly establishes that their actions were constitutional.

Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Rhode Island Lottery Commission

553 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Dec 16, 1982

Thus, the Court “[re-]defin[ed] the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms,” holding that officials may be immune from damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The ACLU knew months before trial that O’Connell intended to rely on the qualified immunity defense.

A.M. Ex Rel. F.M. v. Holmes

830 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 25, 2016

We elect to reach only the clearly-established-law question — that is, the second prong of the qualified-immunity standard. … as the clearly established law that defeats a qualified-immunity defense.

Morton v. City of Corinth, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 17, 2023

This is particularly true given that the individual Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity at an early stage of these proceedings, which requires the Court to inquire into the reasonableness of each … Miss. 2011) (noting that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right”).

Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth

309 F.3d 54 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 25, 2002

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court offered the following general guidance to courts reviewing qualified immunity determinations: "A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider . . … The deadly/non-deadly distinction is significant in the Fourth Amendment context; under clearly established law, the use of deadly force is constitutional only if, at a minimum, a suspect poses an immediate threat to police

Mark D. Jones and Theresa A. Jones v. Ron Wilhelm, Cross-Appellee

425 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials against suits arising out of their exercise of discretionary functions “as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent … Since Wilhelm’s undisputed actions represent a violation of clearly-established, constitutional rights, we find that Wilhelm enjoys no qualified immunity as to the Joneses’ warrant claim. 2.

Percy Taylor v. Joseph Ways

999 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2021

the constitutional right was clearly established at [that] time.” … Step Two: Clearly Established Law in 2011 and 2013 Under the facts asserted by Taylor and relied upon by the district court, Ernst violated clearly established law.