Case law

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.

Timothy Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Dale E. Foltz Gwen Bogan Don Wentworth A.E. Tessmer John Doe, No. 1

14 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 1993

B. 8 Foltz is entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of official discretionary functions to the extent that his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … I am troubled, however, on the question of qualified immunity--whether Taylor "failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." See Siegert v.

Robert Sean Reed v. Campbell Cnty., Ky.

80 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

Clearly Established Inquiry To satisfy the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, the officers’ unconstitutional conduct must violate clearly established law. Williams, 9 F.4th at 437. … Page 21 First, cases where we have found qualified immunity cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation by negative inference.

Carlos Gonzalez v. Able Huerta

826 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2016

Because we find no violation of clearly established law, we AFFIRM. I. … Huerta asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment.

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

6 of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Thus, “[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.”

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless 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.

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.

Jamie Becker v. Zachary Effriechs

821 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 12, 2016

to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” … to qualified immunity on this record.

Larsen v. Senate Of The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

154 F.3d 82 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1998

immunity is from suit as well as from liability, so that "[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 … on qualified immunity grounds.

White v. Busboom

901 N.W.2d 294 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2017

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objec- tive reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 13. ____: ___ … Court Erred in Determining That White’s Predeprivation Due Process R ights Were Clearly Established (a) Qualified Immunity Principles [11,12] The doctrine of qualified

Abell v. Dewey

847 P.2d 36 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1993

However, certain considerations may defeat a claim of qualified immunity. … In a recent opinion involving qualified immunity, we set out the following: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense

Guilford v. Frost

269 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 2017

At a minimum, Sergeant Frost is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the stop. … Young, 780 F.3d 998, 1010 (10th Cir. 2015) (“reciting the overarching requirement of probable cause does not pass muster in a qualified-immunity clearly-established-law assessment”).

Stamps Ex Rel. Estate of Stamps v. Town of Framingham

813 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 5, 2016

The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established. … any Courts of Appeals . . . decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity

McKay v. City of New York

32 F. Supp. 3d 499 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Law is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if “various courts have agreed that certain conduct is a constitutional violation under facts not distinguishable in a fair way from the facts presented in the

McCall v. Williams

59 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 16, 1999

Plaintiff maintains that his right to be free from the application of handcuffs which were too tight was clearly established on the date of the incident. … Just as the Supreme Court found that the officials in Wilson had violated the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, yet they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right had not been clearly established at

Gwinnett County v. King

218 Ga. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 4, 1995

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established.

Crittindon v. LeBlanc

37 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

Nonetheless, the majority concludes three DPSC defendants violated plaintiffs’ clearly established right to timely release from prison and denies them qualified immunity. … Even still, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that it violates the Constitution to hold a prisoner for 17 days while employing reasonable efforts to verify his sentence

Soto v. Chardon

514 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 7, 1981

This principle will be borne in mind when the qualified immunity issues are considered. (Ill) Qualified Immunity from Damages A. … Liability The nature of the qualified immunity defense at common law and in § 1983 cases has been judicially established commencing with Scheuer v.

Toomer v. Garrett

155 N.C. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. See Andrews, supra.

Prison Legal News v. Lehman

397 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2005

immunity because they violated clearly established law. … It also properly granted qualified immunity to the prison officials on this claim because their actions did not violate clearly established law.