Case law

Kennedy v. Sgt Francis

District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 28, 2023

The Supreme Court has established a two-step analysis for qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). … See Hill, 727 F.3d at 322 (considering the impact of Wilkins on the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity cases).

Pennington v. Penner

207 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 9, 2002

The plaintiff maintains the defendant Thuston cannot escape liability on qualified immunity grounds, as he violated clearly established law. … ROBERTS, and CITY OF CHANUTE, KANSAS (Dk. 8) Qualified Immunity “ ‘[Officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Kent Papineau, Nedrick Ashton, Clay Rockwell, Abilene Rockwell, Houston Rockwell, Onenhaida Rockwell and Juanita Lewis, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, Shawn Jones, Andrew Jones, Stonehorse Goeman, Marie Peters, Wealthy Bucktooth, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for Holly Lyons, Robert E. Bucktooth Jr., Cheryl Bucktooth, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for Nadine and Rob Bucktooth, Martha Bucktooth, Roberta Bucktooth, Jordan Bucktooth, Robert Bucktooth, Ronald Jones Sr., Ruth Jones, Debby Jones, Karen Jones, Nikki Jones, Karoniakata Jones, Tracy Kappelmeier, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for Adam Kappelmeier and Matthew Kappelmeier, Shirley Snyder, Andrea Potter, Samantha Thompson, Martha J. Skye, Steven Lee Skye, Cara Skye, Andrew Skye, Stormy Skye, Verna Montour, Sesiley R. Snyder, Alice Thompson, Minnie Garrow, Frances Dione, Wentawawi Dione, Joely Vandommelen, Daronhiokwas Horn, A'anase Horn, Tekahawakwen Rice, Kahente Horn Miller, Kahentinetha Horn, Karonhioko'he Horn, Malcolm Hill, Kathy Melissa Smith, William Green Iii, Kevin Henhawk, Dyhyneyyks, Mona Logan, Gerald Logan, Anthony Kloch Jr., Frank Bistrovich, Brent Lyons, Brad Cooke, Janet Cornelius, Jina Jimerson, Duane Beckman, Chad Hill, Donna Hill, Steve Stacy, Dale Dione, Robin Wanatee, Joshua Wanatee, Ally M. Wanatee, Esther Sundown, Shelley George, Sheena Green, Shiela Fish, Garrett Bucktooth, Joe Stefanovich, Tyler Hemlock, Hayden Hemlock, Skroniati Stacy, Kakwirakeron, Tekarontake, Teyonienkwataseh, Daniel Moses, Andrew Moses, Ross John, Barry Buckshot, Seth Tarbell, Deirdre M. Tarbell and Andrew Buckshot, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. James J. Parmley, George Beach, Pamela R. Morris, Dennis J. Blythe, John F. Ahern, Joseph W. Smith, Jeffrey D. Sergott, Michael S. Slade, James D. Moynihan, James J. Jecko, Robert Haumann, Mark E. Chaffee, Christopher J. Clark, Paul K. Kunzwiler, Douglas W. Shetler, Patrick M. Dipirro, Gregory Eberl, Gary A. Barlow, Mark E. Lepczyk, Martin Zubrzycko, Glenn Miner, Gary Darstein, Kevin Buttenschon, Chris A. Smith, Norman J. Mattice, John E. Wood, Thomas P. Connelly, Jerry Brown, Harry Schleiser, Norman Ashbarry, Peter S. Leadley, Martin J. Williams, Gloria L. Wood, David G. Bonner, Dennis J. Burgos, John P. Dougherty, David v. Dye, Daryl O. Free, James J. Greenwood, Andrew Halinski, Robert B. Heath, Robert H. Hovey Jr., Robert A. Jureller, Stephen P. Kealy, Troy D. Little, Edward J. Marecek, Ronald G. Morse, Paul M. Murray, Anthony Randazzo, Allen Riley, Frederick A. Smith and Steven B. Kruth, Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, County of Onondaga, Onondaga County Sheriff's Department, Kevin Walsh, Onondaga County Sheriff, in His Official and Personal Capacity, Defendants-Cross-Appellees, James W. McMahon Superintendent of New York State Police, in His Official and Personal Capacity, Town of Onondaga, and the Following Persons in Their Personal and Official Capacities as New York State Troopers, Allen v. Svitak Jr., Michael L. Delorenzo, James A. Armstrong, Mark Williams, Clifford A. Heaslip, Edward C. Fillingham, Kimberly A. Fillingham, Jeffrey D. Raub, Mark Bender, Peter Obrist, Eric D. Parsons, Robin Palmer, Michael Grandy, Thomas Irwin, George Mercado, Frank Jerome, James Rogers, Art Brocolli, John Doe, William M. Agan, William M. Ambler, Donald W. Barker, Mark A. Caporuscio, Michael G. Conroy, Peter A. Kalin, Matthew J. Navin, William J. Armstrong, George M. Atanasoff, David R. Barry, Peter J. Beratta, Steven M. Bourgeois, George W. Brownsell, Robert M. Burney, Rodney W. Campbell, Mary A. Clark, Mark Dembrow, Gerald J. Deruby Jr., Michael L. Downey, Gary W. Duncan, John Evans, John J. Fitzgerald, Robert Gardner, John E. Giddings, Douglas R. Gilmore, Gary L. Greene, Andrew A. Lucey, James Martin, James W. O'brien, Gary Oelkers, Derrick A. O'meara, Richard J. Sauer, Michael H. Scheibel, Gary S. Schultz, Timothy G. Siddall, Robert J. Simpson, Katherine Smith, Jay Strait, Michael R. Tinkler, Michael J. White, Donald M. Dattler, Thomas E. Elthorp, Harrison Greeney, Matthew A. Turrie, Dennis J. Cimbal and Kenneth Kotwas, Defendants-Cross-Defendants

465 F.3d 46 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 4, 2006

Lunn, 361 F.3d 737, 743 (2d Cir.2004) (internal citation omitted). 19 Qualified immunity "shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions violate clearly-established … immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law [while] the county commission's liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama").

Harris, Roderick

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 25, 2016

App. 2013) (explaining that an “issue of first impression can sometimes qualify” for extraordinary relief “when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established

Boggs v. Stevens

298 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 6, 2018

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Thus, where the facts shown by the plaintiff do not make out a clearly established constitutional violation, qualified immunity protects the government official from trial.

Renee Williams v. Dean Mannis

889 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 10, 2018

To determine whether Mannis is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask: (1) whether his conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the violated right was clearly established. Manning v. … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated a clearly established right

Harvey Rambo v. John Daley and William McGinnis

68 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 15, 1995

Defendants argue that qualified immunity should protect them because the lack of a significant injury demonstrates that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.”

Wallin v. City of Los Angeles

15 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 1994

However, LAPD Officers' contention that they did not violate any clearly established law at best makes the qualified immunity issue a mixed question of law and fact. 3 Because this appeal does not present a purely legal issue … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity even if "the law governing [his] conduct [was] clearly established[,]" so long as "[u]nder that law, ... a reasonable officer [could] have believed the conduct was lawful[.]"

Merritt Sharp, III v. County of Orange

871 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2017

In its view, the deputies violated clearly established law, thereby precluding qualified immunity, and the district court further held that the asserted state-law immunities were inapplicable as a matter of law and fact. … Qualified immunity is proper unless Plaintiffs establish that (1) the deputies committed a constitutional violation, and (2) the deputies’ specific conduct violated “clearly established” federal law.

Allen Quigley v. Tuong Thai

707 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2013

Merits of Thai’s qualified-immunity claim The qualified-immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights … The estate has established that Thai violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Thai is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Brian O'Hagan v. Hector L. Soto

725 F.2d 878 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 16, 1984

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a defendant is entitled to prevail when his conduct does not violate “clearly established” rights, id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 . … Though the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is well established, the uncertainty as to whether it had attached at the time Soto questioned O’Hagan entitles Soto to resist liability on the basis of qualified immunity. 3 For

Todd S. Floberg v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections Larry R. Meachum Larry A. Fields Denise Robinson Deborah Robison

962 F.2d 17 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 14, 1992

legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time [the action] was taken." … See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 (test of qualified immunity must be established in a particularized and relevant sense).

Ashly Romero v. City of Lansing, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 2026

officer] violated the Fourth Amendment [because the officer] was at least entitled to qualified immunity.”); White, 580 U.S. at 78–81 (addressing only the clearly established prong); Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 11 (“We address … Some of our cases have limited the apparent presumption against qualified immunity to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. See Hart v. Hillsdale Cnty., 973 F.3d 627, 635 (6th Cir. 2020).

Isaac Sparks v. Ronald Stutler and Manuel Largaespada

71 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1996

Until the right in question has been “clearly established,” courts do not demand that public officials dig into their pockets. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The existence of such line-drawing problems calls for immunity; the rule should be established prospectively rather than at the expense of public employees who predict the development of the law incorrectly.

Harris v. O'Hare

770 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants ask us to find that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the key question is “whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Tolan v.

Rainsberger v. Benner

913 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2019

Qualified immunity involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the facts, read in favor of the non-moving party, amount to a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the … But the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis is not the one designed to specially protect the officer-that comes at the second prong, which limits the officer's liability to violations of clearly established law

Jenkins v. Medford

119 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 7, 1997

to a qualified immunity defense.” *1159 I. … of state law. 8 Medford argues on appeal, as he did in the court below, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the deputies have not alleged a violation of a “clearly established” right; he is immune from suit

Morfin v. City Of East Chicago

349 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Additionally, the district court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because "based upon the factual record these ECPD officers did not violate any clearly established rule prohibiting such conduct … Morfin, the law is clearly established that an officer has a duty to intervene to prevent a false arrest or the use of excessive force if the officer is informed of the facts that establish a constitutional violation and

Johnson v. Clafton

136 F. Supp. 3d 838 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2015

Indeed, once a defendant raises qualified immunity, it is the § 1983 plaintiffs burden to show that the constitutional right was clearly established when the defendant acted. Webb, 789 F.3d at 659 . … Therefore, the Court finds that to raise the qualified-immunity shield in this case, Clafton must do more than quote legal standards on what counts as clearly-established law. IV.

Marshall v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS FOR JOHNSON CTY.

912 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jan 22, 1996

in a qualified immunity case according to clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.