Case law

Sossamon v. Lone Star St Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 17, 2009

As for the individual-capacity claims for damages under the First Amendment, we note that the defendants who Sossamon sued enjoy qualified immunity as government actors.76 Whether Sossamon could establish a violation of the … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 205-06 (1996) (“[T]he qualified immunity defense shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Abell v. Dewey

870 P.2d 363 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1994

The Court erroneously applied the law of qualified immunity, i.e. the law was not clearly established in 1990 that a state probationary employee had a property interest in continued employment, and Ap-pellee Dewey is therefore … Once a government *368 official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff in an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 bears the initial burden of convincing the court that the constitutional right was clearly established.

Mary E. Walters v. Paul Freeman

572 F. App'x 723 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2014

Towards that end, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they “violate[] clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … Because the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Walters, demonstrate that Freeman violated her clearly established constitutional rights, the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Freeman.

Boyle v. Patridge

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … Minchuk, 910 F.3d 909, 918 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[A] dispute of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding an officer’s use of force may prevent us from determining whether an individual’s clearly established rights have

Finch v. Wemlinger

361 N.W.2d 865 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Feb 8, 1985

Because the right was not “clearly established” on that date; and since the federal doctrine of qualified immunity was applicable, see Finch v. Wemlinger, 310 N.W.2d 66, 70 (1981); under Harlow v. … Examination of these cases demonstrates clearly that Harlow fundamentally changed the prior law by abolishing the subjective element of the qualified immunity test. See also, Davis v.

Maini v. Town of Norton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 28, 2023

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), a qualified immunity case involving allegations of the excessive use of force in restraining an unruly crowd of demonstrators protesting an appearance by the Vice President, the Supreme Court … Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity where plaintiff despite being held against a van in a knee hold while being handcuffed could point to nothing more

Leonard v. St. Charles County Police Department

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 5, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Further, to overcome qualified immunity, precedent must have clearly established that each Individual Defendant’s own actions “in the particular circumstances” at issue violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Hubbard v. Stout

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 23, 2018

Defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Jones v. … Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.

Peerman v. Catron

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 13, 2023

Qualified Immunity The Court therefore proceeds under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and considers whether the right in question was “clearly established … qualified immunity.

Adamo v. Dillon

900 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2012

Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Adamo] is a deprivation of Due Process. 15. … Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Gill] is a deprivation of due process. 23.

McClellan v. Chippewa, County of

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 7, 2022

Sept. 8, 2022) (“A single district court opinion is not enough to pronounce a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”) (citing Hall v. Sweet, 666 F. … Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709 n.7 (2011) (“Many Courts of Appeals . . . decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”).

A. D. v. State of Calif. Highway Patrol

712 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

The Court then rejected the notion that the law, defined at such a level of generality, was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Markgraf is not entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiffs have shown that he violated the foregoing clearly established law.

Ian Tuuamalemalo v. Shahann Greene

946 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 24, 2019

established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took. … Scott moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Apothio, LLC v. Kern County

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2023

immunity. … that was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s alleged 14 misconduct).

Powell v. Cooper

241 Wis. 2d 153 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2001

Cooper and Stoudt were not entitled to qualified immunity because Powell's due process claims were grounded on clearly established property and liberty interests. Id. at 19. ¶ 12. … When qualified immunity is raised as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating by closely analogous case law that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Quinn v. Cardenas

256 Ariz. 77 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 1, 2023

¶37 Both federal and state qualified immunity require an analysis of whether Cardenas violated established law or unreasonably disregarded the unlawful nature of his conduct. … Those same conclusions—that Cardenas acted as a reasonable officer would and did not violate clearly established law—preclude the opposite finding in state court (i.e., a finding that Cardenas violated established law and

Clark v. Stone

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jul 28, 2020

In the qualified immunity context, when determining whether a right is truly clearly established, a court must consider the “specific context of the case” and avoid construing rights too generally. Saucier v. … It is enough that such a right, even if it does exist in the Sixth Circuit, is not clearly established. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Lowe v. Raemisch

864 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

Even with this assumption, the two officials would enjoy qualified immunity unless the denial of outdoor exercise for two years and one month had violated a clearly established constitutional right. … established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. d.

Grix v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

821 So. 2d 315 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 22, 2002

The court also found that qualified immunity shielded the officer from. liability under section 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established law concerning proper.net measurements when stopping and detaining appellant … Therefore, Millender did not “clearly establish” the method of measuring such nets.

Feis v. King County Sheriff's Department

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

Ed. 2d 836 (2006) (“The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not ‘clearly established’; a quick resolution of a qualified immunity claim is essential … established right so as to rebut *551 the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity.