Case law

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

J.E. ex rel. Edwards v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

898 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 22, 2012

Defendants Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue that the individual defendants are all protected by the qualified immunity defense. … “The qualified immunity doctrine shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability for *559 civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Rancho del Oso Pardo, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 15, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … a right was clearly established.

Doxtator v. O'Brien

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 19, 2021

Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004); accord Sheehan, 575 U.S. at 613 (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … Because no clearly established law supports the claim against Lt. Zeigle, he is entitled to qualified immunity. G.

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

Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. United States

470 U.S. 1029 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 4, 1985

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.”

Lynne Meredith Gayle Bybee Jenifer Meredith Bernadette Keller Carla Figaro, the People of California, Ex Rel. v. Andrew Erath

342 F.3d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2003

Before today, however, it had not been clearly established that this conduct would violate Bybee’s constitutional rights. Therefore, as to this portion of Bybee’s claim, Agent Erath is entitled to qualified immunity. … A right is clearly established if a reasonable agent would have understood *1061 that what he was doing violated that right. Id.

Fleury v. Polk County Sheriff's Office

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 26, 2024

that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (reiterating that “the clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” to overcome qualified immunity (quoting Anderson v.

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).

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 .

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

Lopez v. Stanford

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 24, 2020

While the defense of qualified immunity may be asserted on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the complaint itself [must] establish[] the circumstances required as a predicate to a finding of qualified immunity.” McKenna v. … The Court finds that Plaintiff’s rights were not clearly established under Packingham and that Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Dorr v. Weber

741 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · May 18, 2010

In their motion, defendants contend that Sheriff Weber is entitled to qualified immunity on the Dorrs’ Second Amendment claim because the right to have a concealed carrying permit has not been clearly established. … Clearly established constitutional right at the time Under the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, a right is “clearly established” if “a ‘reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that

Ford v. Reynolds

316 F.3d 351 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 17, 2003

The appellees contend that they are entitled to-qualified immunity. … These claims for equitable relief cannot be barred by qualified immunity, so even’ if, on remand, the district court finds that the defendants are each entitled to qualified immunity, it will still need to address the plaintiffs