Case law

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

Brown v. Meda

74 Md. App. 331 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

[emphasis added, bracketed material in original] As was clearly stated by the Court in Moore v. … The emphasized portion of that statement is simply another way of saying that, in a case involving complex medical procedures or the exercise of professional skill and judgment, a jury is not qualified to determine whether

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.

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.

Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. Peerce

132 S.W.3d 824 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2004

is inapplicable to his § 1983 claims and qualified immunity does not protect the individually-named official Appellants because their actions clearly violated Appellee’s well-established statutory and constitutional rights … Conversely, if the official’s actions violated a clearly established right or law, the immunity is lost and the official is hable for the violation.

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).

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

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.

Perry v. Durborow

892 F.3d 1116 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2018

See Riggins, 572 F.3d at 1107 (noting that to overcome qualified-immunity defense, “plaintiff must demonstrate . . . that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity” (emphasis added)). … Nevertheless, Durborow is entitled to qualified immunity unless Perry can also show that the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation. Riggins, 572 F.3d at 1107. B.

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.

Gubitosi v. Kapica

154 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 19, 1998

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)), and proceed to consider whether the qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 4 Here the gravamen of Kapica’s qualified immunity … As a result, his qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. (2) Accordingly, we vacate so much of the district court’s order of May 9, 1997 as denied Kapica’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified

Krueger v. Lyng

4 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 1993

The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were protected by qualified immunity. … “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 would have

Brown v. Jenne

122 So. 3d 881 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 1, 2012

Qualified Immunity Standard “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established … As to the second determination for qualified immunity, the Thompson court found that the excessiveness of the force was clearly established at the time of the incident, which in Thompson occurred in 1998.

McCall v. Williams

52 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. South Carolina · May 19, 1999

Although the right to due process of law, for example, is quite clearly established, the qualified immunity analysis law is not “to be applied at this level of generality.” Anderson v. … The court notes that the Kopf case, upon which the Vathekan court relied for its clearly established law, did not involve an assertion of the qualified immunity defense.

Will El v. City of Pittsburgh

975 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2020

In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable … of the qualified immunity analysis: “whether the right was clearly established.”