Case law

Wolff, Ronald v. Virgil, Tina

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 4, 2023

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516 (1994) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … Plaintiffs oppose this motion, but as discussed in detail above, defendant Yerges is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiffs show that he violated a clearly established law of which a reasonable officer should

Sturm v. Ross

11 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 10, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for conduct in the course of their official duties unless the alleged conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable public official would have … The Fifth Circuit has developed a two-step process for the examination of a claim of qualified immunity. The first inquiry is whether Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Salvador Reza v. Russell Pearce

806 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2015

To overcome Senator Pearce’s qualified immunity defense, Reza must establish both that Senator Pearce violated his First Amendment rights, and that this violation was of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … In evaluating the question of qualified immunity, we must be careful not to define “clearly established” at a “high level of generality.” City & Cnty. of San Francisco v.

Chambers v. Puff

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2021

Lemmon, 911 F.3d 412, 419 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding waiver where plaintiff did not address the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity in the district court). … What this argument ignores is the fact that qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court to decide; the existence of a clearly established right is not an issue for a jury. Brown v. Knapp, 156 F.

Henry Caraballo-Sandoval and Cree Carmen Caraballo v. R.E. Honsted

35 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1994

Qualified immunity and stay of discovery Caraballo-Sandoval and Cooper contend that clearly established law extended the First Amendment right to freedom of association to visitation privileges. … Qualified immunity protects government official performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v.

Lisa Bergman v. Jeremy Howard

54 F.4th 950 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2022

To qualify as “clearly established,” a principle must originate from an actual Supreme Court holding, not from its passing dicta. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). … Did the Michigan court’s refusal to provide this different type of state-funded expert qualify as an “unreasonable application” of Ake’s clearly established holding? We think not.

Tripathy v. Lockwood

District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 29, 2024

Wright, 597 F.3d 532, 536 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that the district court did not err in granting qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim where the right claimed by the plaintiff was not clearly established at … The case law provides that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim as a matter of law.

Valle Arrizon v. Wolf

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 21, 2021

Qualified Immunity (Count II) Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity to Plaintiff’s RFRA claim in Count II. See Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. … The “clearly established” standard also requires that the legal principle clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him.

Maldonado v. Rodriguez

932 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2019

As to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the district court held that "the law was clearly established that the First Amendment protected their political support for [Rodriguez's opponent] unless … The district court explained Gunaca simply as a holding in favor of qualified immunity, in which the court did not reach the question of clearly established law.

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.

Vigil v. Tweed

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 14, 2021

analysis (whether the law is clearly established). … Defendants violated clearly established law, the Court grants the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims on the basis of qualified immunity. II.

Fowler v. Batts

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 19, 2024

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’ … Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2024) (the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff’s cursory briefing makes no attempt to meet his burden of showing that the defendant violated his clearly

Ehsan Ouza v. City of Dearborn Heights, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 5, 2020

Regarding the clearly established prong, we have repeatedly recognized—and Defendants do not contest—that “freedom from excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing is a clearly established right for purposes of qualified … Clearly Established Right As discussed above, a right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming the qualified immunity defense when existing precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond

LEE v. CLARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 2025

That is not how qualified immunity works. Qualified immunity is determined on a claim-by-claim basis, See Behrens v. … Pa, 2018) (“It would be strange to say that right X is clearly established just because right Y is clearly established and happens to prohibitthe same conduct.”), On this basis alone, reconsideration is improper

Ramirez v. Killian

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 12, 2022

violated clearly established law.” … Plaintiffs Failed to Prove a Violation of Their Clearly Established Rights Qualified immunity applies if a reasonable officer could have believed the disputed act was lawful in light of clearly established law and

Dahl v. Weber

580 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

Ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the district court denied absolute immunity, granted Bloomberg and Dooley qualified immunity, and denied Weber qualified immunity for the period beginning with the admission … Discussion Qualified immunity protects public officials from damage liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Johnson v. Holms

District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 29, 2024

to be clearly established. … immunity. 8 The Court now turns to whether this right was clearly established.

Cynthia Kernats v. Thomas O'Sullivan

35 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 16, 1994

We may not' deny O’Sullivan the shield of qualified immunity unless Kernats can establish that as of December 1,1991, O’Sullivan’s alleged conduct violated clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment. … Because the case law had not clearly established the unlawfulness of O’Sullivan’s alleged actions as of the time he acted, O’Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity.

Haynes v. Marshall

887 F.2d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 12, 1989

"[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' " in a particularized sense, Anderson v. … They suggest, however, that there was no clearly established standard by which to measure whether they used excessive force, until 1986 when the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Whitley v.

Arriaga v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 29, 2021

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff’s “allegations [must] make out a deprivation of a constitutional right,” and “the right at issue [must be] clearly established at the time of the defendant's