Case law

Foster v. Raspberry

652 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 29, 2009

A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) “case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes] the constitutional right;” (2) “a broad statement of principle within … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Cole v. Buchanan County School Board

328 F. App'x 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2009

established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis). … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis turns on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken

Siegert v. Gilley

500 U.S. 226 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 23, 1991

Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, “[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action … This case demonstrates the desirability of this approach to a claim of immunity, for Siegert failed not only to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of Gilley’s actions,

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 10, 2006

in reference to clearly-established law. … Consequently, the court must answer the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis (has plaintiff alleged violation of a clearly established federal right?) in the negative. As such, Lt.

Sanders v. District of Columbia

522 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2007

Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Thomas Hayden Barnes v. Ronald M. Zaccari

669 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2012

We turn now to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis: Was Barnes’s right to this predeprivation process clearly established at the relevant time? 2. … The process due Barnes was also clearly established.

Christopher Cantu v. City of Dothan, Alabama

974 F.3d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 3, 2020

established, which entitled her to qualified immunity on the federal claim and state agent immunity on the state claim. … That means the same facts that establish an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity “also establish that [she] is not entitled to” state agent immunity. Hunter, 941 F.3d at 1284.

Baker v. Matheson

607 P.2d 233 · Utah Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1979

establishes that a constitutional provision has been violated. … noncitizens. 7 The doctrine of fundamental rights was first established in Corfield v.

Robert Stewart v. Donald Donges

915 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity as a defense to an action, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”

Wiggins v. Greiner

132 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 18, 2005

Wiggins submits that the highlighted language in Roberts clearly establishes that prosecution efforts to locate a witness must be “undertaken prior to trial” to demonstrate good-faith. … Whether the challenged photo display in this case clearly qualifies as a confirmatory identification is an issue of state law not relevant to our habeas review. See Estelle v.

Young v. City of Providence

396 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 2, 2005

Camilo-Robles, 151 F.3d at 6 . 5 More specifically, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and … The Second Prong: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Chinchello v. Fenton

805 F.2d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1986

We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an “I didn’t do it” defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear cut as in most other contexts … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established ... statutory rights” and, based on Davis v.

Morris v. ZEFFERI

601 F.3d 805 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [42 U.S.C. §] 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of … To defeat Zefferi’s qualified immunity claim, Morris must show Zefferi potentially violated Morris’s clearly established constitutional right as a pretrial detainee to be free from being transported for ninety minutes in

Howard v. City Of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2022

Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 388 (5th Cir. 2015) (“It is well established that ‘municipalities have no immunity from damages liability flowing from their constitutional violations.’” (quoting Owen v. … Serrano and Vieira overstate the scope of any potential qualified immunity. See Pelletier, 516 U.S. at 312. Serrano was denied qualified immunity for allegedly conducting an unreasonable strip search.

Terry A. Veney v. Michael Hogan Carol Hernandez Frank D. Fleischer and Martha Knicely

70 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

For a law to be “clearly established” in the context of qualified immunity, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … The trial court need not deny a defendant the right to qualified immunity simply because a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.

Stephen Hopkins v. Anthony Nichols

37 F.4th 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

These errors, perhaps understandably, led the district court not to discuss the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity as it pertained to the seizure of Mrs. Hopkins. … Hopkins may have amounted to a clearly established constitutional violation. For those reasons, we conclude that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to defendants for the alleged seizure of Mrs.

Estate of C.A. v. Castro

547 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 2013

Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An official “does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract....

Walsh v. Franco

849 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1988

Qualified or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In Robison , we outlined three ways in which an official could establish his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Anhorn

416 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2006

The law became clearly established when the Third Circúit considered the issue of qualified immunity under similar circumstances in Rogers v. … Thus, because the right in question is clearly established, Anhorn must also be denied qualified immunity as to the final plaintiff, Johnson. d.

Freeman v. Fallin

422 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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 known.” … contain hidden, and at the time unexpounded, constitutional roadblocks. 9 Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established, Butera, 235 F.3d at 646 , and these defendants are entitled to qualified