Case law

James Schoonover v. Clay County Sheriff's Dept.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 15, 2023

To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we must examine, in either order: “(1) whether a constitutional violation occurred; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at … qualified immunity.”).

Niewolak v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MI

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 19, 2022

With respect to qualified immunity, as to the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he law is clear in this Circuit regarding the prohibition against excessively forceful handcuffing.” Baynes v. … City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001) (the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes).

Devon W. Brown v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2019

With respect to such claim, the Officers would also have qualified immunity regarding their movement of chairs, looking behind counters, and looking into refrigerators as no clearly established precedent indicates that … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (holding that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “a reasonable officer could have believed” that the search was lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information

Self, Carl v. Bates, Kelsey

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 14, 2025

Even if prison officials violate the Constitution, they are entitled to qualified immunity absent proof of a violation of clearly established law. Tousis v. Billiot, 84 F.4th 692, 698 (7th Cir. 2023). … Thus, the court must deny summary judgment as to both, including on qualified immunity grounds. See Hardeman v.

Luchtel v. Hagemann

623 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 2010

Luchtel has not shown that the use of the officers’ bodies and handcuffs in the manner deployed violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 . … A reasonable police officer could properly believe that the use of this level of force would not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See Jackson, 268 F.3d at 653 n. 5; see also Malley v.

Maurice Moore v. Dr. John Duffy

255 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 6, 2001

Duffy’s conduct was not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Dr. Duffy contends on appeal that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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 would have known

Henry H. Amsden v. Thomas F. Moran, Etc.

904 F.2d 748 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 29, 1990

Qualified immunity shields government officials wielding discretionary powers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … not necessarily entitled to prevail on the issue of qualified immunity- *752 Collins v.

Feis v. KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.

165 Wash. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 2011

resolution of a qualified immunity claim is essential." … established right so as to rebut the officers' assertion of qualified immunity.

Williams v. Baird

273 Neb. 977 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2007

Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual capacity, so long as an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … workers. 32 Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 33 An official sued

Jan McRaven v. Lt. McMurrian

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2009

was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … The district court denied defendant-appellants qualified immunity. A detainee’s right to medical treatment is clearly established. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.

Saez v. Judicial Branch

District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2022

In order for a plaintiff to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a right of the plaintiff that was clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question. … App’x 533, 535 (2d Cir. 2004) (dismissing qualified immunity appeal because employee’s right to be free from racially discriminatory imposition of a probationary period was clearly established in 2004).

Park County v. Cooney

845 P.2d 346 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1992

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court took up the question of what constitutes a “clearly established legal rule” for purposes of qualified immunity: The operation of … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

McLin v. Trimble

61 O.B.A.J. 1633 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1990

The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The petitioners are immune from suit unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra.

Grose v. Caruso

284 F. App'x 279 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2008

a violation of clearly established law.” … When constitutional violations are not clearly established, state officials are entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Joseph Walton, as Next Friend of Christopher Walton, a Minor v. Alma Alexander, Alma Alexander

20 F.3d 1350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

State officials are protected by qualified immunity for alleged constitutional torts if their conduct does not violate clearly established law effective at the time of the alleged tort. Harlow v. … Therefore, the first step in examining a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is to determine whether the plaintiff has “al-leg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

City of Fayetteville v. Romine

373 Ark. 318 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 2008

violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … his conduct violated that clearly established right.

Tidwell v. Gomez

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021

Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct … violated clearly established law.’”

Doe v. Marsh

105 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 22, 1997

"Even where the plaintiff's federal rights and the scope of the official's permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was 'objectively reasonable' for him … 'clearly established' at the time [the action] was taken.")

Estep v. Combs

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 17, 2020

This would cloak Combs in qualified immunity. See Phillips, 786 F. … See, e.g., DE 55-1 at 16–18, 21–22.21 However, the Sixth Circuit has explicitly held that “freedom from excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing is a clearly established right for purposes of qualified immunity

Clark v. Dunn

195 W. Va. 272 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1995

The one difference in immunity cases is that the official’s act must be shown to have violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Refoim Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which