Case law

Jacob Clark v. Bernadette Stone

998 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 2021

They also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue because there is no clearly established right to use corporal punishment on children. … App’x 469, 481 (6th Cir. 2019) (“A single district court opinion is not enough to pronounce a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”)

Hollingsworth v. Hackler

303 S.W.3d 884 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 21, 2010

immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under § 1983 if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. 18 A right is “clearly established” when its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

Root v. Loucks

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 2021

Supp. 3d 636, 664-65 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (arresting officer not entitled to qualified immunity despite officer’s testimony he merely gave arrestee a “bear hug” in light of plaintiff’s testimony that he was placed in a chokehold … Ohio 2004) (stating that an officer who “flipped [plaintiff] to the ground and choked him two times, the second time while [plaintiff] was not resisting . . . violat[ed] . . . clearly established law”).

Crooks v. Maynard

718 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, D. Idaho · Aug 4, 1989

This court has found no published decision which clearly defines the scope of qualified judicial immunity. This circuit has defined qualified immunity for jury commissioners and directors of jury services. … Under this qualified immunity, they were immune so long as their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable *1465 person would have known.” Id.

Whitten v. City of Omaha

199 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 9, 2016

were clearly established at the time it was taken. … But even assuming that Whitten has alleged a violation of his constitutional right, the contours of that right were not clearly established. *1233 The Court evaluates the defense of qualified immunity from the perspective

Housley v. Holquist

879 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2011

The Housleys bear the burden of proving the violation of a constitutional right, but the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that the right was not clearly established. See Wilson v. … Finally, the Court will not revisit the qualified immunity issue at trial.

Jeffers v. Gomez

267 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2001

The availability of qualified immunity in such a case naturally turns on whether it was "clearly established law" that Motive Y was impermissible. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity "requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?

Derek Westwater v. Kevin Church

60 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Alternatively, the court ruled that Church was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal § 1983 claim because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. Westwater appeals. … In these circumstances, summary judgment should not be granted on either qualified immunity issue, whether the force used was reasonable and, if not, whether the violation was clearly established.

Vakilian v. Shaw

335 F.3d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2003

Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … now ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of Shaw’s action.

Steven J. KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert G. BORG, Defendant-Appellant

60 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 28, 1995

Despite this erroneous statement in his order, however, the magistrate judge ultimately conducted the proper inquiry for a qualified immunity examination: He ruled that the right allegedly violated was clearly established … Appellants argue that they should have been granted qualified immunity because the second, “clearly established,” prong of the test has not been met.

Alhadji Bayon v. Marshall Berkebile

29 F.4th 850 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2022

The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting that their use of force was justified and that, in any event, they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … The officers assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because “no clearly established law put them on notice that their con- 16 duct would violate Bayon’s rights.”

Ahmad v. Furlong

435 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, he must then demonstrate that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” Id. … To be sure, Appellants’ motion did not clearly raise qualified immunity with respect to the RLUIPA claim.

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

defendants and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id.

Wayne Thomas Ahlers and Nina Ahlers v. Ronald J. Schebil

188 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 1999

Qualified Immunity Next, Plaintiffs contend on appeal that, regardless of this panel’s conclusions as to whether Wayne Ahlers’s arrest was supported by probable cause, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because … There are really two separate inquiries here: whether the Washtenaw County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and whether Parsons is entitled to qualified immunity.

McMillian v. Johnson

88 F.3d 1554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

The issue for qualified immunity purposes, however, is not whether the due process right not to be punished before conviction was clearly established. … Clearly Established Law Prohibited Police' Suppression of Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence Tate, Ikner, and Benson are protected by qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law.

Dunn v. Castro

621 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 14, 2010

On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether governing law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Mabe v. … [3] A court, when deciding whether there has been a viola- tion of a “clearly established right” for qualified immunity, must strike the proper balance in defining that right. In Ander- son v.

Hartman v. Middleton

974 P.2d 1007 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1998

to defeat the defense of qualified immunity. … Where qualified immunity is raised in a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must determine, based upon the allegations of the plaintiff, whether a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established “that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

Brown v. Truelove

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 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.” Kisela v. … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts examine (1) whether “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Jon Hyde v. City of Willcox

23 F.4th 863 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 6, 2022

To determine whether an officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court asks, in the order it chooses, (i) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether the right was clearly established at … Pralgo and Callahan-English violated clearly established law.