Case law

Muhammad v. District of Columbia

881 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2012

Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers' action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … “[T]he protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.’ ”

Michtavi v. Scism

808 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2015

She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need. … “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Brad Livingston, Robert Treon, Martha Wear and Paul Morales v. Atiba Ramone Taylor, Tdcj 1082601

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 6, 2009

Qualified Immunity (5) Qualified immunity shields a government official "performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official's conduct does not violate clearly established … When a government official pleads qualified immunity, the summary judgment burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence which establishes that the official's conduct violated the clearly established law. Newman v.

Stutzman v. Krenik

350 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 10, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Stutzman has alleged facts that state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, the Court will not dismiss the claim at this stage based on the defense of qualified immunity. B.

Intervarsity Christian Fellows v. University of Iowa

5 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

immunity because the law was not clearly established. … As for qualified immunity, the court denied the individual defendants qualified immunity on the free speech and association claims, finding that the law was clearly established that the University could not discriminate based

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 1987

In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, our determination is limited to the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged support a violation of clearly established law: An appellate court … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Collar v. Austin

86 F. Supp. 3d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 5, 2015

immunity, the Court is required, sua sponte, to determine whether the allegations of the complaint reflect the violation of a clearly established right. … circumstances as denials of qualified immunity.

Robbins v. Wilkie

433 F.3d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

That is, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established. … Robbins has thus sufficiently alleged a violation of his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Robbins’ Bivens claim. 2.

Brad Rush v. City of Philadelphia

78 F.4th 610 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

Dennis and denied Officer Nicoletti qualified immunity. … However, qualified immunity exonerates even unreasonable officer conduct unless (1) the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established, “such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable

Weatherford v. State

203 Ariz. 313 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 10, 2002

secured by the Constitution and laws.... ” ¶ 23 To prevail on such claims, a plaintiff must overcome a qualified immunity defense by proving: (1) the defendants violated one of the plaintiffs clearly established rights; … Youngberg arguably reaches the constitutional right Weatherford asserts to be clearly established. ¶ 27 Moreover, Weatherford points out that decisions from eight federal courts support the assertion of a clearly established

Tan Lam v. City of Los Banos

976 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

In sum, the district court properly denied the Rule 50(b) motion on qualified immunity as to Lam’s Fourth Amendment claim. The law was clearly established at the 30 LAM V. … Officer Acosta is Entitled to Qualified Immunity An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Ashcroft v. al- Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011).

Miller v. Wenerowicz

135 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2015

Once a defendant properly raises the defense of qualified- immunity, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of overcoming that defense by showing that the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established right. … But, as indicated above, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must cite to cases or other law that recognize a clearly established right of a prisoner to have his marriage request promptly approved

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

718 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2013

immunity, which involves both whether there was a constitutional violation and whether the violation was clearly established. … the clearly established law found by the jury.”

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

625 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 3, 2010

Officer Davis moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, claiming that his actions did not violate the constitution and, if they did, that the law was not clearly established at the time. See Aplts. … Clearly Established Denial of qualified immunity is appropriate if the officer violated law that was “clearly established” at the time of his or her conduct. See, e.g., Perez v.

Eves v. LePage

927 F.3d 575 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Analysis We move directly to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis and ask whether Governor LePage's alleged conduct violated "clearly established" federal … Convinced the defendants' actions, if proven, would violate clearly-established law, the district judge denied them qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Id.

Dukore v. District of Columbia

970 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2013

“The doctrine of 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 … Arresting the plaintiffs An officer making an arrest is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the seizure violates the Fourth Amendment.

Wheeler v. City of Lansing

660 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2011

In order to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we must look at the objective reasonableness of the officer’s conduct in relation to clearly established law. Id. … to qualified immunity.

Bolanos v. Bain

696 So. 2d 478 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 2, 1997

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … 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 government

Crawford v. Geiger

996 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2014

/A 4 The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … Even if there is such right, they argue, that right has yet to be clearly established, so the doctrine of qualified immunity entitles the on scene officers, even if they impaired any such right, to dismissal. i.

Clark v. Coleman

335 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 14, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Mullenix v. … Dec. 20, 2006) (holding that calling a police officer an "asshole" and an "Opie-Taylor-looking motherfucker" was protected speech, but finding qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in 2003).