Case law

Shadmani v. Barnes

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 11, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Lytle v. Bexar County, Tex.

560 F.3d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

The Clearly Established Right At the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry, we ask whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … The right in question was therefore clearly established on February 28, 2006, and this is sufficient to affirmatively answer the qualified immunity question of our inquiry.

Clancy v. McCabe

58 Mass. App. Ct. 498 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 8, 2003

The qualified immunity test is a two-step inquiry. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. at 201-202. 1. Whether constitutional violation clearly established. … “[T]he ‘clearly established [right]’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established that a supervisor

Fenstermaker v. City of Dayton, Ohio

712 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 1988

, but also [in order to find a claim of qualified immunity to be well taken] that it was not clearly established that the circumstances under which the official or officer was confronted at the time of the challenged action … Qualified immunity protects the individual police officers from liability under federal law for their official actions, if said actions do not violate clearly established legal, statutory or constitutional rights.

Charles Austin v. Redford Township Police Depart

690 F.3d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

Qualified Immunity on Austin’s Excessive Force Claims “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … Page 7 force against a subdued suspect was clearly established.

Pethtel v. West Virginia State Police

568 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jul 29, 2008

Qualified immunity is abrogated only upon a showing that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and that such right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. Id. … Furthermore, even if the plaintiff had established a constitutional injury, the supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity because, as discussed above, such injury was not clearly established at the time. E.

Lynette Christmas v. Harris County, Georgia

51 F.4th 1348 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2022

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for govern- ment officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … If, however, the official vio- lated the law[,] but his conduct was not clearly established as un- lawful, the court must grant him qualified immunity.

Henderson v. Harris County

51 F.4th 125 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 12, 2022

But unpublished opinions “do not establish any binding law for the circuit,” so “they cannot be the source of clearly established law for the qualified immunity analysis.” Marks v. … This court denied the officer qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Harris

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 7, 2024

“When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … support for the notion that the law is clearly established.”).6 Accordingly, Ms. Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim against Ms. Shelton-Denley is barred by qualified immunity.7 B.

McGrew v. Duncan

333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

Peggy Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, Mississip

905 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

The resolution of this case turns primarily on whether these rights were clearly established, so we will begin with that step of the qualified immunity analysis. … established law. 60 He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 61 C.

Ware v. James City County, Virginia

652 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 4, 2009

Defendants further argue that, even assuming that the arrest was unconstitutional, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights which Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a clearly established right, such that a reasonable police officer would have known,

Self v. City of Mansfield

369 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 26, 2019

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … a clearly established constitutional right.

Anderson v. Village of Forest Park

238 Ill. App. 3d 83 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 1992

In addition, she argues that the Harlow immunity did not apply when the discretionary act violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, defendants had the burden of proving either that the law was not clearly established or, if the law was clearly established, that defendants neither knew nor should have

Terry v. Cnty. of Milwaukee

357 F. Supp. 3d 732 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 11, 2019

The test for qualified immunity is (1) whether the defendants' alleged actions violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) "whether the implicated right was clearly established at the time." Jones v. … Therefore, if Bevenue did ignore Terry's cries for help as she went into labor, qualified immunity would not protect Bevenue from suit because "qualified immunity does not insulate state actors from violations of clearly

Adair v. Hunter

236 F. Supp. 3d 1034 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 16, 2017

Under the doctrine of. qualified immunity, “government . officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In the alternative, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law regarding the illegality of the alleged conduct under the THRA. (Doc. 30 at 2-6).

Morales v. Chadbourne

235 F. Supp. 3d 388 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jan 24, 2017

clearly established at the time of the event. … Where Director Chadbourne’s qualified immunity defense fails is.in.proving the “clearly established” prong. The evidence shows that it was clearly established in 2009 that Ms.

Stephen Burrell v. Mike McIlroy Glen C. Rector Jeff Thorpe

464 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 2006

Moreover, even if Rule 41 were applicable to the search, at the time of the search the failure to serve a warrant at the outset of a search was not a clearly established violation of the constitution. … Thus, on the facts of this case, the district court did not err in finding that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Callahan v. Millard County

494 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 16, 2007

The district court held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Callahan did not establish that the officers violated a clearly established right. … Callahan’s rights were clearly established Having established that Mr. Callahan’s rights were violated, we now turn to whether these rights were clearly established.

Rowe v. Schreiber

139 F.3d 1381 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

"For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable … In this case, for qualified immunity not to apply, the right which must be clearly established is some right to have the resources of the public defender's office administratively allocated in a specific manner or the right