Case law

Grimes v. Fitts <b><font color="red"> AS OF 10/19/22, FILINGS FROM SHALL BE SCREENED BEFORE BEING DOCKETED [74]</font></b>

District Court, S.D. Texas · May 21, 2024

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity and arguing that Plaintiff cannot establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to his claims (see Dkt. No. 116 at 1, 3, 16–18). … The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the warden at summary judgment. Id. at [*13– 14].

Harold E. Sonnleitner v. Stanley York, Joann O'connor, Kathleen Bellaire, Kathy Karkula and Joe Leann

304 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2002

However, under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Sonnleitner has failed to establish that this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Sonn-leitner has failed to carry his burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right to a pre-de-motion hearing as to

Kirk v. City of Newark

109 N.J. 173 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 1988

Thus, the qualified-immunity defense would be lost if the official knew or reasonably should have known that his or her action would violate plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights or if he or she maliciously … For Kirk to defeat Cardillo’s assertion of the defense of qualified immunity, Kirk must show that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Daniel G. Buonocore v. Donald L. Harris, Special Agent, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and David R. Cundiff, Deputy Sheriff, Franklin County Sheriff's Department Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia James D. Thompson, Assistant Manager, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia Linda Sue Taylor United States of America, Daniel G. Buonocore v. David R. Cundiff, Deputy Sheriff, Franklin County Sheriff's Department, and Donald L. Harris, Special Agent, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia James D. Thompson, Assistant Manager, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia Linda Sue Taylor United States of America

65 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 12, 1995

established' for qualified immunity purposes." … They do broadly assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the right "allegedly violated" was not "clearly established." Appellants' Brief at 20 (emphasis added).

Justiniano v. Walker

986 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 19, 2021

Cronin, 537 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2008) (reasoning that, even if a constitutional right has been clearly established, a defendant may nonetheless be protected by qualified immunity if a reasonable official … So now, as we leapfrog the initial elements of the qualified-immunity analysis (recall that we're assuming arguendo that the use of the pepper spray was unreasonable and Justiniano had a clearly established right to be

Renfroe v. Parker

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 28, 2020

Ct. 1148, 1153 (2018) (reversing denial of qualified immunity)), amended in part, No. 3:18-CV-609-DPJ-LRA, 2019 WL 3806641 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 13, 2019), aff’d, 974 F.3d 594 (5th Cir. 2020). … Ct. at 1153 (reversing denial of qualified immunity where facts did not fit clearly established law). The 2020 autopsy report and expert report do not “clearly” change that result either.

Spahr v. Collins

District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 17, 2021

With respect to qualified immunity, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of … To show that a right is “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of case law that places the statutory or constitutional question at issue beyond debate

Fisher v. Smith

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 27, 2023

Therefore, Fisher failed to establish a constitutional violation, and Dr. Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. … See Escobar, 895 F.3d at 393; Romero, 888 F.3d at 176 (holding that to avoid qualified immunity, plaintiff must show violation of constitutional right and right was clearly established at time of

Woods v. Adamski

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 24, 2020

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … immunity”); Clash, 77 F.3d at 1048 (denying summary judgment on qualified immunity claim because the Court lacked the “given facts” that either do or do not show a violation of “clearly established law”); Pabon v.

Starkey Ex Rel. AB v. BOULDER COUNTY SOC. SERV.

569 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 2009

Even if they had violated one of the Starkeys’ constitutional rights (in which case BCDSS might be liable), they would be protected by qualified immunity if the constitutional right had not been clearly established at the … Qualified immunity, however, is available only in suits against officials sued in their personal capacities, not in suits against governmental entities or officials sued in their official capacities. See Beedle v.

Mattson v. Streibel

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 20, 2023

violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless a plaintiff proves: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Jason Moorhead v. West Virginia Army National Guard and West Virginia Mountaineer Challenge Academy

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 2, 2025

Clearly Established Rights or Laws Petitioner alleges that three different clearly established laws or rights were violated by the cadre that should strip Respondents of qualified immunity: (1) MCA’s safety … established rights or laws, we find none that strip Respondents of qualified immunity on these facts.

People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle

498 Mich. 192 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2015

not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … required to establish immunity.

Parks v. Taylor

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 23, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For these reasons, and because “the right to be free from unduly tight handcuffing [is] ‘clearly established,’” Mr. Yerby is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Matson v. Hrabe

612 F. App'x 926 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 22, 2015

Hrabe was entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Matson failed to show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of action. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (discussing two-prong qualified-immunity test).

Pensacola Christian College v. Bruhn

80 So. 3d 1046 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 30, 2011

Toyota Distribs., LLC., 60 So.3d 1155, 1157-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“A special employer qualifies as such where ‘(1) there was a contract for hire, either express or implied, between the special employer and the employee; … Hecht Invs., Ltd., 924 So.2d 944, 945-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that W-2 tax forms alone did not establish an employment relationship). Rather, as this court stated in Hoar Construction v.

Victoria Cunningham v. Dep't of Children's Servs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2021

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 person … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v.

Cassidy Jared Loch v. City of Litchfield

689 F.3d 961 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 27, 2012

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Gary Orlowski v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

872 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

Defendants Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The first question we must address is whether Alexander and Manns (“Defendants”) are entitled to qualified immun- ity. … Manns that could impact qualified immunity analysis.

McMillan v. City of New York

711 F.3d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 2013

To accomplish this goal, the ADA requires that 13 employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified 14 individuals. See id. § 12112(b)(5). … This burden is not heavy: “It is enough for the plaintiff 21 to suggest the existence of a plausible accommodation, the costs of 22 which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.”