Case law

Adam Saetrum v. Jake Vogt

673 F. App'x 688 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2016

Cases from this and other circuits clearly established that using a car as an impact weapon constituted at least a significant, intermediate level of force. See Young v. … The Takedown Claim With respect to the takedown claim, by contrast, Vogt’s actions did not violate clearly established law.

Vanessa Cole v. Dennis Hutchins

959 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 2020

“Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to the purely legal issue of whether the facts . . . alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established … The law was clearly established in two respects relevant here.

Rangel v. Lorum

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 23, 2019

Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 667 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of qualified immunity for supervisor of parole agent who failed to respond to complaints by plaintiff parolee that agent was sexually harassing him). … Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms, the Eighth Amendment right of prisoners to be free from sexual abuse was unquestionably clearly established prior to the time of

Atkinson v. Pustilnik

District Court, S.D. Texas · May 2, 2024

established, meaning qualified immunity was warranted) … Violation of a Clearly Established Right The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry requires me to determine if the “right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant

James T. Voutour v. Harold Vitale, James T. Voutour v. Harold Vitale

761 F.2d 812 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 9, 1985

established statutory or *819 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Like Wheeler, Chief Forni raised a qualified good faith immunity defense against Voutour’s section 1983 claim.

Harmon v. City of Arlington

16 F.4th 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

First, the plaintiffs argue that Tran is not entitled to qualified immunity because his use of excessive force violated a clearly established constitutional right. … To overcome qualified immunity, the law must be so clearly established that every reasonable officer in this factual context—an officer holding onto the side of a fleeing car where the driver has ignored instructions

Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company v. United States of America, International Trademark Association, Amicus Curiae

86 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 1996

We start our analysis with the well-established proposition that the United States may not be sued without its consent. See Affiliated Ute Citizens v. … that the agency action had transgressed and establish that the statute or regulation applies to the United States.

Nelson v. Giurbino

395 F. Supp. 2d 946 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 20, 2005

Relying on these cases and decisions, Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional right to access internet generated materials was clearly established and concludes that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Since Plaintiffs fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court finds that Defendant Grannis is entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Michael Matzell v. Anthony J. Annucci

64 F.4th 425 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 4, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages for violation of a right under federal law if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity bars a plaintiff's claim unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Francis v.

Garces Robles v. Ramirez

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 25, 2024

Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Hicks, 81 F.4th at 504 (holding that the right to timely release was clearly established as of 2017).5 “Ultimately, the touchstone is fair warning: The law can be clearly established despite notable factual distinctions

Hicks v. LeBlanc

81 F.4th 497 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2023

Appellants insist they are entitled to qualified immunity because they neither violated Hicks’ constitutional rights nor acted unreasonably in light of clearly established law. We disagree. … Having established that Hicks’ right to timely release was clearly established, we turn to the first question of qualified immunity: whether _____________________ 21 U.S.

Lane v. Nading

927 F.3d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 20, 2019

immunity because they had not violated any of Lane's clearly established constitutional rights. … The "officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " District

Tracy Ray Vaughan v. James D. Ricketts

859 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 14, 1988

Ricketts moved for summary judgment, claiming a qualified immunity from suit because the law governing body cavity searches of inmates was not clearly established as of March 1984. … Finally, the district court found that clearly established standards existed under the eighth and fourteenth amendments as well. The court thus refused to grant Ricketts qualified immunity on any of Vaughan’s claims.

Brosseau v. Haugen

543 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 13, 2004

not entitled to qualified immunity. … We grant the petition on the second, qualified immunity question and reverse.

Piphus v. Blum

108 Ohio App. 3d 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

would believe was lawful in light of “clearly established law” and “information possessed” at the time of the challenged conduct. … In the absence of that clearly established right, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Schneyder v. Smith

709 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2010

Detention As a Material Witness Requires Probable Cause Under Third Circuit law, “a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … would have known that those rights were clearly established constitutional rights. 2.

Long v. Underwood

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 4, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit “in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Univ., 102 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

952 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 2020

Without setting forth a clearly established right for which the analysis can continue, Plaintiffs have not defeated Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense. … his actions violated clearly established law.

Lumry v. State

Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 5, 2018

In claiming qualified immunity, Blecha first contends that the law was not clearly established that he could be personally liable for the FLSA claims; in other words, Blecha asserts that it was not clearly established in … N.Y. 2014) (defendant not entitled to qualified immunity since rules governing its conduct were clearly established, even if the rules about personal liability were not clearly established).

Garcia v. Royal Bank of Canada

178 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity Noriega contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … If no violation of a clearly established constitutional right is found, then the analysis halts because “there is qualified immunity.” Aponte Matos v.