Case law

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.

Malley v. Briggs

475 U.S. 335 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 5, 1986

We reject both propositions and address first the absolute immunity issue. A Our general approach to questions of immunity under § 1983 is by now well established. … that the judicial process will on the whole benefit from a rule of qualified rather than absolute immunity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Tuttle v. City Of Oklahoma City

728 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 1984

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-9 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (government officials "are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … immunity"); Pierson v.

Watkins v. City of Oakland

145 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 1998

Although the use of excessive force in effecting an arrest is a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, Watkins’ legal right cannot be so general as to allow him to “convert the rule of qualified immunity . … established for purposes of determining whether the officers have qualified immunity.

Lundgren v. Freeman

307 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1962

Civ.P., which provides that: “findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous * * Therefore, we may not substitute our judgment if conflicting inferences may be drawn from the established facts by reasonable … Like the issue of wrongful purpose, we feel that the issue as to the existence of quasi-arbitrators’ qualified immunity is a question of fact.

Powell v. Shelton

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 19, 2020

Defendants Brown and Shelton are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Hayek, 488 F.3d at 1054-55 (upholding qualified immunity for fatal shooting).

Patricia Thorsted Stephanie Thorsted v. Tim Kelly

858 F.2d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1988

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … First, they contend that qualified immunity was unavailable to Kelly because it was clearly established that the fourth amendment prohibited arrests without probable cause and the use of unreasonable force by police.

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.