Case law

Paine v. Cason

678 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 17, 2012

McMahon v. City of Beardstown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2024

But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. … McMahon’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures. As a result, the Court cannot find that the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nettles-Bey v.

(PC) Hafiz v. Yates

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2020

Hines, 914 F.3d at 1230. 1 Ninth Circuit, like the courts below, proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified 2 immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ … Katz, 533 U.S. 4 194, 201 (2001) (establishing the two-part inquiry for qualified immunity: (1) whether the 5 alleged facts violate the Constitution, and (2) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was 6 clearly

Monaghan v. Moates

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 20, 2023

Moreover, when the Aguirre court discussed the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity, it did not mention arguable probable cause and instead analyzed whether the plaintiff had a clearly established right to … Because Monaghan has established a genuine dispute over whether Williams and Moates violated his clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, neither Williams nor Moates are entitled to qualified immunity at this

Gibson v. Idleberg

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 18, 2025

was clearly established at the relevant time.” … Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) (“An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

103 Wash. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 11, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken.” … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers’ actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

Cleveland v. Martin

590 F. App'x 726 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 2014

 Qualified Immunity. … With these unpublished decisions, we cannot find a clearly established liberty interest. And without such an interest, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim.

Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Human Services

519 F.3d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

the alleged violation was not clearly established. … defendant violated clearly established law.”

Purtell v. Mason

527 F.3d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2008

Qualified-immunity claims are determined by reference to the two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman v.

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

666 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Doe v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2022

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the … Argument on probable cause collapses into the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The right to be free from warrantless arrests without probable cause has long been clearly established. Burritt v.

Johnson v. Dobbins

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 17, 2021

“To survive a motion to dismiss on qualified- immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that ‘plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established … Here, Plaintiff alleges that the County Defendants violated clearly established law by placing him in solitary confinement without justification. (Doc. No. 67 at 10).

Douglas v. University of Hawaii

District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 7, 2023

In other words, an official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a law that was clearly established at the relevant time showed that his conduct was unlawful and “a reasonable official could not have believed” otherwise … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985) (qualified immunity protects officials unless “the law clearly proscribed the[ir] actions”).

Angelo DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville Ohio

796 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

Specifically, as pertinent here, the court denied qualified immunity to Mayor DiFilippo and Fire Chief Klubert on the due process claim concerning demolition of the building, denied qualified immunity to Police Chief Morelli … Qualified immunity shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights. Harlow v.

Al-Jundi v. Estate Of

885 F.2d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1989

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate those rights." 28 Al-Jundi contends that, at the time of the Attica riot, the law was well-established that the

White v. Miyares

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2025

As the Supreme Court has stated, “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … The qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and, if so, “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v.

Molinelli v. Tucker

901 F.2d 13 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 1990

The court also rejected the qualified immunity defense, noting, based on testing procedures deemed analogous to urinalysis, that the law was clearly established in October 1986 that the defendants’ conduct was subject to … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

Blaine Sallier v. Deborah Brooks and Christine Ramsey

343 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2003

In 1993 in Lavado , when faced with a qualified immunity issue, we held that it was clearly established as of 1987 that a prisoner’s mail could not be opened and read in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. 992 F.2d at 610 … This analysis brings us to the third step of the qualified immunity: whether Sallier has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

ESTATE OF FRANCES D. DEROSA v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2025

. ¶¶ 79, 80, 94.)2 On May 12, 2023, Judge Quraishi granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that because no clearly established right was violated, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct

Sanchez v. The Village of Wheeling

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 2020

Evanston Defendants seek qualified immunity for Detective Bush, arguing that the right at issue was not clearly established. Doc. 49 at 4-9. … To avoid qualified immunity, Sánchez must show that the right was clearly established “in a particularized sense, rather than at a high level of generality.” Alicea v.