Case law

Giambrone v. Douglas

874 So. 2d 1046 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 1, 2003

Douglas did not meet his burden of establishing that his actions and decisions involved functions that entitled him to immunity. B. … Furlow and Long met their burden of establishing that their actions and decisions involved functions entitling them to immunity.

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

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.

Claudine L. Boyce, Also Known as Marilyn Boyce v. Vera Fernandes and City of Peoria, Illinois

77 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 26, 1996

Where the only issue bearing on immunity is whether the defendant had probable cause to make the search or arrest that is challenged, merits and immunity merge; the dispositive question is simply whether the defendant did … The fact that in the end Boyce was not prosecuted does not establish the absence of probable cause, and not only because the legal standard and the evidentiary requirements for probable cause are more stringent at the preliminary

Friedman v. Boucher

580 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

Because Friedman’s rights were clearly established at the time that Defendants took the sample, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the forcible taking of the DNA sample violated Friedman’s clearly established constitutional rights, neither Boucher nor Luzaich is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fleet Hamby v. Steven Hammond

821 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2016

For that reason alone, they did not violate a “clearly established” right, and so they must be entitled to qualified immunity. … Even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which Hamby relies cannot do the work he asks of them. a One of the cases Hamby cites denied qualified immunity

ND State University v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2001

"Wages usually are income, but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages." Cent. Ill. Pub. Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978). … because a tenured professor's right to substantive due process was clearly established); see also Mueller v.

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”).

Zeigler v. Jackson

716 F.2d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1983

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that public officials whose positions entail the exercise of discretion enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability in … In order to show that a defendant exercising broad discretionary power lacked good faith, plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

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.

Joseph Wheeler, Cross v. City of Pleasant Grove, a Municipal Corp., Cross

664 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 1981

We see no reason to disturb this finding under the clearly erroneous rule. … The district court held that the defendants in this action were shielded by the defense of a qualified immunity as set forth in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

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.

Maureen Mirabella v. Susan Villard

853 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

The rights allegedly violated, however, were not clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, however, we conclude that the right was not clearly established.

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.

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

Little v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 256 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2015

In their sur-reply, plaintiffs put forth new and additional reasons on which they base their request for relief, which either were not clearly asserted previously or were entirely absent in their original complaint or amended … As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction over claims against the United States (1) founded on an express or implied contract with the United States,

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

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

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.