Case law

Moss v. Martin

614 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

Defendants’ motion relied on qualified immunity, and so that is what the district court focused on. … It recognized that there are two elements of a qualified immunity claim—first, that the defendants violated Moss’s constitutional rights, and second, that those rights were clearly established at the time the defendants acted—and

Defore v. Premore

86 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 1996

Discussion Qualified immunity insulates public officials from claims for damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Moreover, qualified immunity is available as a matter of law when the undisputed facts establish that it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that their actions did not violate clearly established rights

Cook v. Nelson

167 Vt. 505 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Mar 13, 1998

was clearly established; (3) qualified immunity should not be available as a post-judgment defense; and (4) even if qualified immunity can be used as a post-judgment defense, the defense was waived because defendant did … If the rights at issue can be stated as broadly as plaintiff urges, they will always be clearly established and qualified immunity will rarely apply. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 (1987).

Walsh v. Franco

849 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1988

Finally, we ruled that the defendant in Weber was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the unlawful search because the unconstitutionality of a policy of indiscriminate strip searches was clearly established … "). 18 Thus, the third Robison method is fact-specific and would preserve the qualified immunity defense for these appellants only if, in light of the clearly established rule that indiscriminate strip-searching of misdemeanor

Bisbee v. Bey

39 F.3d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 3, 1994

In evaluating defendants’ qualified immunity claims, we must first determine whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, state a claim for a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established when defendant acted … Defendants concede that, if plaintiffs allegations are true, he has shown a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Mt. Health City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.

Randall S. Bills v. John J. Dahm, Warden Harold W. Clarke, Director

32 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 1994

A prison official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly-established statutory or constitutional right. Anderson v. … The defendant prison officials, therefore, did not violate a clearly established right, and thus are entitled to qualified immunity in this action. II.

Wheeler v. Gilmore

998 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 30, 1998

Because the constitutional right asserted by plaintiff is neither clearly established nor absolute, defendant Gaden is entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, the threshold qualified immunity question here is whether there is a clearly established constitutional right to privacy in information contained in a pre-sentence report.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Braddy

673 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2012

Discussion Qualified Immunity “If the law at that time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution, the officer should not be subject to … Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003).4 For qualified immunity purposes in this case, the federal law applicable to the specific circumstances of this case was not close to established clearly at

Taravella v. Town of Wolcott

599 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 16, 2010

And because this principle has been clearly established since Loudermill , the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis would appear to be satisfied. … Ill “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him

William Dominque v. James A. Telb, Sheriff, Jimmy G. Putnam, Assistant Deputy Director

831 F.2d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 23, 1987

plaintiffs clearly established rights. … constitute a violation of clearly established law.

Howard Harrell and Sarah Harrell v. Donald Cook, Jack Woods, John Keenan, and a Police Officer Unknown To

169 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 17, 1999

immunity, because the Harrells faded to allege a violation of a clearly established federal right. … The court further found that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and hence the defendants were not protected by qualified immunity.

Jackson v. Tellado

236 F. Supp. 3d 636 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 15, 2017

was clearly established. … of force that violated clearly established law. b)Defendant Braumann The Court also denies qualified immunity to Defendant Braumann.

S.J. Ex Rel. S.J. v. Perspectives Charter School

685 F. Supp. 2d 847 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 2010

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the alleged conduct gives rise to a constitutional violation, and that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Tun v. … Spencer and Frye outside a ‘clearly established’ constitutional norm, they are entitled to qualified immunity”) (citing Doe, 631 F.2d. at 92-93 ).

Jerry Smith, Jr. v. Melvin Finkley

10 F.4th 725 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2021

vi- olated was not clearly established. … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Hidahl v. Gilpin County Department of Social Services

938 F.2d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 16, 1991

Having found qualified immunity, the district court noted that it need not address the issue of absolute immunity. … No. 6, 784 F.2d 340, 342-43 (10th Cir.1986), we stated that in a § 1983 action, where the defense of qualified immunity is raised, it becomes the plaintiff’s burden to convince the court that the law was “clearly established

David J. Scott v. Patrick Churchill, Inspector, Carson City Regional Facility, Philip Bair

377 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

An official defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … established, and Bair is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

892 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1990

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, Darryl H. does not supply the particularized, clearly established right required for individual defendants to lose their qualified immunity. … immunity because the conduct alleged does not violate any clearly established first amendment rights.

Ronnie Rice v. James Burks and Mark Harvey

999 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1993

Police officers who use force in making an arrest are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v.

Stone v. Badgerow

511 N.W.2d 747 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 1, 1994

Did the district court err in holding that the law supporting appellants’ claim was sufficiently clearly established to defeat qualified immunity? II. … violation of clearly established law.

Shearl Danenberger v. J. Thomas Johnson, Mark Frech and Bill Fleischli

821 F.2d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 4, 1987

Supreme Court stated that “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id. at 3018 (quoting … prior to Hermes , and, thus, the defendants in this case would still be entitled to qualified immunity since any such right enunciated in Hermes was not previously clearly recognized.