Case law

Douglas W. Schwenk v. James Hartford Steve Sinclair Robert Mitchell,opinion

204 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 29, 2000

This satisfies the first part of the “analytical framework” for determining qualified immunity established in Siegert . … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Tonya Weinberg Gilmore v. Pam Hodges

738 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless they violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took place. … The Plaintiffs’ reliance on unpublished case law drawn from other circuits and from the district courts is unavailing, because only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Wilkins v. Palomino

District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2021

district court to rebut qualified immunity.”); Rojas v. … Absent this clearly established law, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Coates v. Powell

639 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 8, 2011

Nevertheless, the court granted Glandon qualified immunity, finding that the law did not clearly establish “at the time of this incident that an officer was required to leave a private home in the middle of a child neglect … “[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

Morgan v. Bubar

115 Conn. App. 603 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 14, 2009

The defendants argue that Carini and Castronova are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … “When [a motion for summary judgment] is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. ...

Fancher v. Barrientos

723 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Barrientos asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … Accordingly, the district court, in evaluating Barrientos’s assertion of qualified immunity, did not err in concluding Barrientos violated clearly established law when he fired shots two through seven.

Carnell v. Grimm

872 F. Supp. 746 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Dec 27, 1994

Qualified Immunity Plaintiff enjoys a clearly established right against arrest without probable cause. See Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir.1991) (right is clearly established). … the qualified immunity standard requires more than the firm establishment of a generalized right.

Raub v. Campbell

3 F. Supp. 3d 526 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 28, 2014

Goo-den filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and officers invoked qualified immunity. The district court initially denied qualified immunity as did a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit. Id. … a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Emerson v. City of New York

740 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 2010

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or ( … If the right is not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, then government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity. See Safford Unified School District v.

Khansari v. City of Houston

14 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 9, 2014

’s Fourth Amendment rights, the court turns directly to the second analytical step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether that right was clearly established when the actions at issue occurred. … January 26, 2010), plaintiffs acknowledge that [f]or the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, “ ‘clearly established’ means that the ‘contours of the right’ are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Ralph Harrison Benning v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections

71 F.4th 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2023

The Supreme Court re- cently summarized this aspect of the qualified immunity inquiry: Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, because the law was not clearly established, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Ms. Edgar and Ms. Patterson are en- titled to qualified immunity on Mr.

David N. OSOLINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lt. KANE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

92 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 1996

immunity, typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established’.” … “Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Allen v.

Baer v. Leach

2014 DNH 214 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 24, 2015

Finally, Baer argues that Leach cannot be entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from arrests unsupported by probable cause is clearly established, and because a reasonable officer would have known … Determining whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes requires assessing the right “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Mullenix v.

Alfredo Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. T.R. Hook, Individually and in His Official Capacity Don Hardwick, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and John Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard One Through Two, Individually and in Their Official Capacities University of California Robert Pogna, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory, Alfredo Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. T.R. Hook, Individually and in His Official Capacity Don Hardwick, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and the United States Department of Energy John Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard One Through Two, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Gary Granere, Acting Area Manager-Department of Energy Los Alamos Area Office University of California Donald Kerr, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory Ed. C. Walterscheid, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory John S. Herrington Robert Pogna, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory

844 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1988

to qualified immunity. … If the law was not clearly established at the time defendants acted, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 524 , 105 S.Ct. at 2814 .

Hicks v. Leffler

119 Ohio App. 3d 424 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

First, with regard to immunity for a federal claim, in order to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have … Taken together, Hunter and Harlow stand for the proposition that, where the law has been clearly established, a mistaken decision made in extraordinary circumstances may not lead to loss of immunity.

McGreal v. AT & T Corp.

892 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 2012

Qualified immunity can be grounds for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right. Landstrom v. Ill. … In Tamayo , the Seventh Circuit reversed a dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity because “[tjaking all facts pleaded in [the plaintiffs] complaint as true, the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional

Isely v. Capuchin Province

877 F. Supp. 1055 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 7, 1995

General Electric Company, supra, make clear that the initial foundational requirement a proponent of expert scientific testimony must meet as a pre-requisite to admissibility is to establish that the witness is qualified … It was in Frye that the "general acceptance” requirement was first established. 4 .

Melissa Hearring v. Karen Sliwowski

712 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2013

clearly established.” … Dragovic, 576 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2009) (addressing the clearly established prong first in the qualified-immunity analysis).

Vitalone v. Curran

665 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 17, 1987

The court held that Anderson did not enjoy qualified immunity, because “the Creightons’ fourth amendment rights and the ‘exigent circumstances’ doctrine were ‘clearly established’ on [the date of the search].” … Thus, to win summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, defendants must establish either that the law establishing the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, or that, in light of the facts and circumstances

McCartney v. May

50 S.W.3d 599 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 7, 2001

overcome their entitlement to qualified immunity. … ’s qualified immunity on May’s substantive due process claims.