Case law

Castro v. Utah County Sheriff's Department

District Court, D. Utah · Sep 20, 2024

from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”47 “Once an individual defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the … When defining a flagrant violation, the Spackman court essentially adopted the same standard for determining whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Joanne Hedrick v. Western Reserve Care System and Forum Health

355 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 4, 2004

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: “1) he is an individual with a disability; 5 2) he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to perform the job requirements … memorandum is distinguishable in that the memorandum’s tone was clearly discriminatory, see id.

Joseph Siefert v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs

951 F.3d 753 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2020

And, at the very least, Defendants argue, the Sieferts’ due process rights were not clearly established, so qualified immunity blocks this lawsuit. … Even so, could this all be “clearly established” to get around qualified immunity? This standard extends broadly to “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” District of Columbia v.

Melinda Butler v. Sarah Harter

152 So. 3d 705 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 1, 2014

Work-Product Privilege and Motions for Attorney’s Fees It is well-established that “work product retains its qualified immunity after the original litigation terminates, regardless of whether or not the subsequent … The federal district court held that counsel waived attorney-client privilege when he testified regarding the basis for the offer, and he clearly waived the privilege when he established a record regarding the basis for

Gray v. Washington State Department of Transportation

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 11, 2023

Plaintiffs must assert that the Individual 9 Defendants violated a clearly established federal right in order to surmount their qualified 10 immunity defense. See Lindsey v. … Shalmy, 29 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that the 11 doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply to “clearly established federal rights.”) (emphasis 12 added).

Cortez v. McCauley

438 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 2006

If, on the other hand, a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id. … the defendant qualified immunity “if prior decisions did not clearly establish that the use of that force in those circumstances was constitutionally excessive.”

Flemming, Jayvon v. Bohnsack

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 23, 2020

I also conclude that Bohnsack is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Locke v. … Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2015) (“The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Bradley v. DuPage County Sheriff's Office

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

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court asks two questions: (1) whether Kuschell violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that “right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … any clearly established right.”

Ginter v. Skahill

298 F. App'x 161 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 28, 2008

In the alternative, even if Ginter had established a violation of her constitutional rights, Skahill would be entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Wolfe v. Hocking County Sheriff's Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2024

Sept. 8, 2021) (affirming a grant of qualified immunity on the clearly established prong where officers searched the plaintiff’s home and seized property listed in a divorce order); Bates v. … Because Defendants raise qualified immunity, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated his Second Amendment right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time.

Russo v. City of Bridgeport

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 12, 2007

itself — rather than its source 2 — is clearly established. … Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392, 1398 n.11 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that 6 the only issue before it with respect to qualified immunity was “whether there was a clearly 7 established duty to investigate”; that its prior decision

Cosme v. Faucher

District Court, D. Connecticut · May 10, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was “clearly established.”

Duran v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc.

921 S.W.2d 778 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · May 1, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In Point of Error Two, Duran contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Romero on the basis of qualified immunity. … to conclusively establish one of the elements of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the trial court erred in granting Romero’s motion for summary judgment.

Orwig v. Brooks

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 30, 2019

Maynard, 937 F.2d 1521 (10th Cir. 1991), does not discuss the qualified immunity doctrine at all, providing no support for plaintiff’s position that the right at issue here was clearly established. … Young, 780 F.3d 998, 1015 (10th Cir. 2015) (where plaintiffs had failed to carry burden of identifying cases that constituted clearly established law, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity).

United States v. Sanchez Barreto

93 F.3d 17 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 21, 1996

Under the well-established framework for evaluating plea-withdrawal motions, the district court considers all the circumstances, with particular attentionto four prominentfactors: (1) the plausibility … Consequently, without more, their general allegations of coercion, based on the imminence of trial or conflict-free defense counsel's enthusiasm for the negotiated plea bargain, are insufficient to establish

Harris v. Mahr

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 4, 2020

We conclude that the law was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident and reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Therefore, the denial of qualified immunity was error.

Serrano v. Guevara

315 F. Supp. 3d 1026 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · May 29, 2018

Qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability if their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v. … The qualified immunity defense focuses instead on whether the official defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. (emphasis in original) ); Fields II , 740 F.3d at 1114 .

People v. Malchow

193 Ill. 2d 413 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 21, 2000

These factors clearly weigh in favor of the conclusion that the Notification Law’s effect is not so punitive that it defeats the legislature’s intent. … This limited distribution clearly is not analogous to stigmatization penalties such as branding, stockading, pillorying, or banishment.

Estate of Devin Katzfey v. Dittman, Michael

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jan 5, 2022

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to reasonable officials in their positions that their actions … Once a government official raises the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show: (1) he suffered a violation of a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the law was “clearly established at the time of the alleged

Daniel Martinez v. Nueces County, TX

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 2016

A public official will be granted qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct”). 3  Case: 15-40358 Document: 00513502097 Page: 4 Date Filed