Case law

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

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.

Henry Benitez v. D. Wolff, J. Kihl

985 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 3, 1993

The court also ruled that if defendants had violated Beni-tez’s right to due process, they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right infringed was not “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Anthony Novak v. City of Parma

932 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2019

Page 5 Officers Riley and Connor are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the … They do not bear on the qualified immunity analysis above because, as with most interesting legal issues, the law is not clearly established. Issue 1.

MacFarlane v. Walter

179 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 1999

In both the Teague and qualified immunity contexts, the Supreme Court has determined that a precedent is "clearly established" if it compels a particular legal result. Under Teague v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the notion that a right can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only if "the very action in

Clem v. Corbeau

284 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 25, 2002

Accordingly, a constitutional right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes not only when it has been “specifically adjudicated” but also when it is “manifestly included within more general applications of … Indeed, in this circuit, we have found only one case in which an officer sought qualified immunity on facts like those alleged by Clem, and there we con-eluded that the officer’s appeal of the denial of qualified immunity

Sorey v. Kellett

849 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1988

Sec. 1291 , however, is clearly a matter of federal law; state procedural law is not directly controlling. Budinich v. … The court held that the commissioners were protected by qualified immunity because they had "no role in the roommate selection or supervision of 'clients'," but merely exercised discretionary authority over the establishment

Julious McGruder v. Jeff Heagwood Clyde Murphy, Jr. Bobby Baxter

197 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 7, 1999

The District Court 1 granted defendants summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. McGru-der appeals, and we affirm. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages “unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Wright v. Gualandri

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2021

If Gualandri is contending that the record reflects at this point that he is entitled to qualified immunity because "a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law … Rohde, 778 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2015) ("[F]abricating evidence . . . violates a clearly established constitutional right, such that qualified immunity does not shield the manufacturers of such evidence from liability

Clark v. Levesque

336 F. App'x 93 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 8, 2009

And because the statutory rights were not well-established, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity whether or not their conduct would in fact have violated RLUIPA. See Harlow v. … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”).

Kathleen Cope and Teresa D. Davis v. Devra S. Heltsley, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Hopkins County Court Clerk

128 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 1997

Heltsley was entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer presented with the facts known to her would not have believed that she was violating any clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiffs … Ill Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as explained by the Supreme Court in Harlow v.

Cojocaru v. City University of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 29, 2021

Further, the Individual CUNY Defendants intend to argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and “[u]ntil the threshold issue of qualified immunity has been decided, “discovery should not be allowed.” … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Integrated Resources Equity Corp. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough

799 P.2d 295 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1990

Sutro & Co., 646 P.2d 715, 721 (Utah 1982) (university trustees’ investment decisions held to be discretionary and thus protected by the rule of qualified immunity). … We are thus unable to conclude that Helms and Wortman violated clearly established law.

P.C. v. McLaughlin

913 F.2d 1033 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 6, 1990

P.C. clearly has a right to a free appropriate public education, but in order to defeat a qualified immunity defense he must show that such right was “clearly established” in more than just a general sense; that is, it must … Of course, when rights are not clearly established, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

A. K. H. Ex Rel. Landeros v. City of Tustin

837 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2016

A defendant who appeals a denial of qualified immunity on the ground that his “conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, in any event, did not violate clearly established law” has “raise[d] legal issues” that may … Clearly Established Right Although we conclude Officer Villarreal’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment, we may affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity only if “the right which was violated was clearly

Williamson v. City of Virginia Beach, Va.

786 F. Supp. 1238 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 13, 1992

“controlling precedent”) has, for qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” such right. See Jensen v. … jurisdictions), can “clearly establish” a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Estate of Ryan J Mitchell v. City of Waupun

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 25, 2023

To overcome a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, “the plaintiff[] must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … claim of qualified immunity.

Vincent Henderson Daryelle Rexrode John Calella v. Stuart O. Simms Richard Lanham, Sr. William O. Filbert

223 F.3d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 28, 2000

The district court dismissed Appellants’ suit on the ground of qualified immunity, reasoning that Appellees did not violate Appellants’ clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment. … To that end, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Lawson v. Abrams

863 F.2d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1988

that decision, noted that prosecutors may assert only qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, for their administrative or investigative tasks not intimately associated with the judicial process. … have absolute immunity for some of their acts but only qualified immunity for others.

55 Fair empl.prac.cas. 338, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,294 William D. Crutcher, Marion L. Madry v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appeal of H. David Owens

883 F.2d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 1989

whether Owens violated clearly established constitutional rights, and *504 whether Madry sustained her burden of producing direct evidence of racially-based animus. … In remanding this issue, we note a confusion that has arisen at oral argument on this qualified immunity appeal.