Case law

Kinney v. Weaver

111 F. Supp. 2d 831 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 16, 2000

Nevertheless, as will be discussed in further detail in the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test, this is irrelevant. The defendants cannot do indirectly that which they could not do directly. … similar to qualified immunity under federal law.

Crehan v. Davis

713 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 18, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … With no clearly established law in place .... ”)). 10 *697 This means that Crehan cannot defeat Officer Davis’s qualified-immunity defense w+nt “clearly establishing” her general Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive

Cottone v. Jenne

326 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2003

[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Id. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine the applicability of qualified immunity.

Sheehy v. State

250 Mont. 437 · Montana Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1991

Plaintiffs argue that the result in Davis was clearly foreshadowed under the long-standing principle of intergovernmental tax immunity and as a logical extension of the Court’s decisions in a series of cases. … The second extension of prior law took place when the Court *443 established the connection between the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity and the protection against discriminatory taxation of individuals under 4

Rodriquez v. Furtado

771 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 11, 1991

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has recently interpreted these holdings to establish a two-part objective test for qualified immunity claims: First, if the right asserted by the plaintiff was “clearly established … Therefore, Detective Furtado is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in his position would not have known he was violating any clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiff. 2.

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.”

Palmer, Brady v. Eisenhauer, Scott

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 14, 2024

Qualified Immunity Officer Pride also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Palmer’s claims because his conduct did not violate a clearly established … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Willingham v. Crooke

412 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

This is known as the defense of qualified immunity. Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, *558 Ms. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Silva v. Town of Springer

121 N.M. 428 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1996

Section 1983 because of Appellees’ defense of qualified immunity. 21. Public officials have qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. … his or her conduct was violating that clearly established right.

Hays v. Ellis

331 F. Supp. 2d 1303 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 23, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Having so concluded, the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Marcus Hanks v. Randall Rogers

853 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2017

“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.’” White v. … App’x 453, 459–60 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (construing Deville as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he “quickly escalate[s]” an encounter with a non-threatening, passively-resisting

Irizarry-López v. Torres-González

363 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 18, 2005

Qualified Immunity Ortiz further self-servingly restates qualified immunity law as established by the Supreme Court and followed by the First Circuit. … In order to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine l)whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; 2)whether that right was clearly

Eddie Ford v. City of Yakima

706 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Clearly Established Right The officers are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if Ford’s right was not clearly established when the officers booked and jailed him. … Because the law concerning the right in question was clearly established at the time of Ford’s arrest, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

McMillian v. Johnson

878 F. Supp. 1473 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 17, 1995

Additionally, Tate argues that he is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because he did not deprive McMillian of clearly established federal right. … in conduct which violates clearly established law, then qualified immunity does not afford the defendant protection from the claim.

Narducci v. Moore

572 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Burge, 874 F.2d 1201, 1204-05 (7th Cir.1988), we held that officials who searched a police officer’s desk and a briefcase found in his car were immune from suit under § 1983 because the search did not violate a clearly established

Charles Pierre v. Sandra Doorley City of Rochester

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 25, 2020

Pierre’s alleged constitutional right—timely access to post-conviction exculpatory evidence was and is not “clearly established.” Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (explaining that qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Laura Toms and Ira Chaiffetz v. Bob Taft Reginald J. Wilkinson Anthony J. Brigano Lawrence Belskis Mark Clark

338 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2003

The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established such that reasonable officials would know that their conduct violated the right. … Although courts engaging in qualified immunity analyses often consider only case law when determining whether the right at issue was clearly established, the Supreme Court in Hope also considered a Department of Justice report

Adams v. NaphCare, Inc.

246 F. Supp. 3d 1128 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 31, 2017

As the Magistrate Judge noted, state actors are entitled to qualified immunity from such claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … immunity, since it was not clearly established that the agency head bore such responsibility for her subordinates.”

Youngblood v. Qualls

308 F. Supp. 3d 1184 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 6, 2018

immunity framework discussed above, the Court must examine "first, whether plaintiff has established a constitutional violation under the three-part Worrell standard and, second, whether the law was clearly established such … Thus, our circuit uses a sliding scale to determine when law is clearly established.

Auriemma v. Rice

895 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1990

We must now turn to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry and determine whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity inquiry of whether a constitutional right is clearly established.