Case law

Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Jon Husted

810 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 19, 2016

Public officials thus are eligible for qualified immunity if (1) they did not violate any constitutional guarantees or (2) the guarantee, even if violated, was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct … Far from being clearly established, the plaintiffs’ rights under the Dormant Commerce Clause have not yet been established at all.

Cramer v. Bohinski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Alternatively, The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the violation. (Id.) … the right was clearly established.

Whitington v. Zavaras

424 F. App'x 777 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

“Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: whether a constitutional violation occurred, and whether the violated right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1166-67.

ROBERTSON v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2024

It is unclear whether providers hired by a prison to provide care to inmates can raise the qualified immunity defense. See Currie v. … constitutional right was ‘clearly established" at the time of the official's alleged misconduct.").

Patrick v. Miller

953 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 1992

, public officials lose immunity in the face of clearly established law. … established law," thereby giving rise to qualified immunity under Harlow....

Aguilar v. Moyer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2023

the right was clearly established. … Moyer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Walker v. Johnson

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 18, 2020

“Under the second prong, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735. … cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity”).

Donald D. Kessler, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. National Enterprises, Inc. Arkansas No. 1 Lcc

238 F.3d 1006 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2001

The Co-Owners of this Regime shall have the right to use said recreational facilities jointly with other property regimes established or to be established by the Developer or such other persons who are licenses or guests … To establish constructive fraud under Arkansas law, the misrepresentation must be material. See Scollard v. Scollard, 329 Ark. 83 , 947 S.W.2d 345, 348 (1997).

McClellan v. Smith

439 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 24, 2006

In rejecting the claim that it misapplied the facts to the issue of qualified immunity, the District Court considered the following facts established: [McClellan] admitted that [Smith] identified himself as a police officer … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity offers protection for “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Keesee v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2024

Burrows is also entitled to qualified immunity because his acts were authorized by a court order and thus did not violate Keesee’s clearly established statutory rights. See Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. … Louis, 39 F.4th 494, 507 (8th Cir. 2022) (reversing denial of qualified immunity “because it is not clearly established that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply to § 1983 conspiracy claims”).

Sensabaugh v. Krznarich

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 5, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a constitutional right that was “clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.” Bianchi v. … It would be error for me to find that the general “right to be free of excessive force” is clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. Emmons, 139 S.

Dennis Grimes v. James Tilton

384 F. App'x 603 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

Defendant prison officials appeal from the district court’s order denying them qualified immunity in California state prisoner Dennis Grimes’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. … were clearly established in late 2005 and 2006 when defendants denied his requests for a vegetarian diet based on his religious beliefs.

Donna Singer v. State of Maine, John Lafaver

49 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 13, 1995

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In applying these principles to a recent qualified immunity determination, the Supreme Court stated: “A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is ‘clearly established

Patricia Polanco v. Ralph Diaz

76 F.4th 918 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 2023

NELSON, dissenting: Because the law is not clearly established, I conclude that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Id. at 1121 (granting qualified immunity because it found the law was not clearly established).

Mendoza v. Herrera

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2020

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.’” … In response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to qualified immunity, plaintiff does not identify a case that clearly establishes that his constitutional rights were violated.

Lane v. Sarpy County

165 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 1999

For reversal, Lane argues that the district court erred in holding that qualified immunity protects defendants from § 1983 liability for errors made in the preparation and execution of an arrest warrant intended for another … Because plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation, defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 6 In sum, we conclude upon careful review that the district court's analysis of this

Abdulsalaam v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Martinez v. Carr

479 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

The district court further found this seizure to be unlawful and ruled that Officer Carr w as not entitled to qualified immunity from suit because his conduct violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under … In order for the law to be considered clearly established at the second step of the Saucier analysis, we have explained that “‘there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity 11 Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the "right" they allegedly violated was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment's protection against excessive force was not clearly established

Burns v. County of Cambria

971 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1992

Finally, in considering the qualified immunity defense of the two Roberts defendants, the court held that they were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Id. II. Appellate Jurisdiction A. … Clearly Established Standard Roberts argues, however, that it was not clearly established at the time of these dismissals that deputy sheriffs, as distinguished from other public officials, were indeed protected under the