Case law

Stearns v. Clarkson

615 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 13, 2010

Clearly Established Rights The district court correctly noted that the rights at issue in this case are clearly established. … Because the rights at issue in this case are clearly established, the defendants are only entitled to qualified immunity if, based on the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Mr.

Scarpino v. Grosshiem

852 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Apr 13, 1994

Qualified immunity. Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the individual plaintiffs’ claims for damages. … Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages is available if the law as it applied to the relevant facts was not clearly established and if a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct was lawful.

Donald Morgan v. Michael Robinson

920 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 29, 2019

“The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656. … Having established the facts in the summary judgment record, I now turn to the qualified immunity analysis.

BORONDY v. DRAHER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 10, 2022

A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity where: (1) "a closely analogous case establishes that the conduct is unconstitutional"; or (2) "the violation is so obvious that a reasonable state actor … Ct. 577, 590 (2018) (constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity analysis if "every reasonable official would interpret [then-existing precedent] to establish the particular rule the plaintiff

Buonocore v. Harris

65 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 12, 1995

established’ for qualified immunity purposes.” … They do broadly assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the right “allegedly violated” was not “clearly established.” Appellants’ Brief at 20 (emphasis added).

Orozco v. Sandoval County

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 27, 2020

clearly established. … Therefore, in light of Plaintiff's failure to cite to clearly established law, the Court holds that Edwards is entitled to qualified immunity.

Winfield v. State

172 Vt. 591 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jun 8, 2001

Thus, if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability. Cook v. … Assessed in light of these standards, the trial court’s ruling on the issue of qualified immunity was sound.

Fredrick K. Koch v. Town of Brattleboro, Vermont, Sherwood D. Lake, Jr., and John Doe, Unidentified Brattleboro Police Officer

287 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 29, 2002

Because the law on that question is not clearly established, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. I. … Therefore, Koch cannot point to a “clearly established right” that Lake and Holbrook violated in order to break the officers’ qualified immunity and survive the summary judgment motion. 3.

Joan Gruenke, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Leah Gruenke, a Minor v. Michael Seip

225 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2000

When the defendant violates a clearly established right about which a reasonable person would have known, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Parkhurst v. … to qualified immunity.

Joe Richardson Jr v. Oakland County Animal Shelter

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2020

“An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … question was clearly established, to analyze first).

Tommy D. Hopkins v. John L. Saunders

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 1996

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The district court determined, however, that the right to such a hearing was clearly established by section 105.055 and thus denied the officials qualified immunity. We disagree.

Rivera v. Senkowski

62 F.3d 80 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 8, 1995

Finally, the district court rejected defendants’ defense of qualified immunity as to the retaliation claim since (1) the constitutional right against retaliation had been clearly established by 1990 and (2) defendants’ acts … Appellate Jurisdiction The affirmative defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Kantamanto v. King

651 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2009

Thus, the Court must turn to the remaining prong of qualified immunity analysis: “whether ... defendant [North] is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that his conduct did ‘not violate clearly established statutory … The fact that the right is clearly established, however, does not end the qualified immunity analysis in the First Amendment retaliation context.

Dolihite v. Maughon

74 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1996

The qualified immunity analysis requires the court to determine whether a defendant violated clearly established constitutional law. 21 In Harlow v. … is insufficient to clearly establish the law for purposes of overcoming the appellants’ qualified immunity claims in this ease. 23 In determining whether the appellants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity, we

C.M. v. Southeast Delco School District

828 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1993

In order to obtain qualified immunity, each defendant must show that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Finally, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, because the kind of abuse alleged by plaintiff is a violation of *1192 clearly established constitutional rights, and because plaintiff makes sufficient allegations

Wagner v. Bay City Texas

227 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2000

as to how long the de- unreasonable excessive force in light of clearly fendants held Gutierrez on the ground, how established law. … summary established right has been violated judgment on their qualified immunity defenses.

Rodriguez v. Phillips

66 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1995

Moreover, defendants’ actions at that time must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law; otherwise, those actors are entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when the qualified immunity defense is based on a showing that an asserted right was not clearly established since the inquiry as to whether a right was or was not clearly established

Sherman L.G. Noble v. Janice Schmitt and Connie Stevens

87 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 14, 1996

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability or civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Preferably, the claimant will make factual allegations in his complaint which are sufficient to establish a violation of clearly established law before the qualified immunity issue arises. Dominque, 831 F.2d at 676 .

Stein v. Gunkel

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Nov 2, 2021

Hamblen Cty., Tennessee, 969 F.3d 592, 601 (6th Cir. 2020) (noting that an unresolved question of law cannot qualify as “clearly established law” under the qualified immunity test and assuming the Farmer standard applies … If the law was not clearly established, then neither Gunkel nor Sterling could have violated Stein’s rights and qualified immunity bars Stein’s claims against them.

Penn v. Escorsio

764 F.3d 102 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 22, 2014

established such that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the assumed facts indicated that they were merely inattentive or careless, then qualified immunity would shield them despite the fact that [they] violated [an inmates’s] clearly established rights.