Case law

Woodward v. City of Worland

977 F.2d 1392 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 1992

The Supervisors therefore should have been granted qualified immunity on this claim because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law constituting constructive discharge. 2. … ’s constructive discharge claim, but they have not established qualified immunity as to the constructive discharge claims of Molina and DeSomber; Williams, Sackett and *1405 Mitchell are entitled to qualified immunity on

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.

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

Christian v. Fontenot

672 So. 2d 436 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1996

To avoid the protection of qualified immunity on the basis that the right which *446 the official allegedly violated is "clearly established," the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases clearly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights. 483 U.S. at 639

Shilling v. Crawford

536 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 12, 2008

Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights under RLUIPA. 1. … Qualified immunity applies unless a defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hope v.

Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Simmons

401 F. Supp. 2d 1181 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 22, 2005

If plaintiffs make this showing, defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were nonetheless reasonable in light of the clearly established law. Roska ex rel. Roska v. … “A defendant who has appropriately pleaded the affirmative defense of qualified immunity may establish his right to immunity at any point in the proceeding, including at trial.” Guffey v.

Sorenson v. Ferrie

134 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 1998

Claims of qualified immunity are reviewed under a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … We hold only that, for purposes of qualified immunity in this civil case, the law was not clearly established on this question as of the date of this incident.

Cochran v. Gilliam

656 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2011

a violation of clearly established law.” … Because the subject of the interlocutory appeal is limited to the pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged constitute a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant seeking qualified immunity must be willing to

Jesse Drewniak v. P U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.

2021 DNH 020 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 26, 2021

Qualter’s Assertions of Qualified Immunity Do Not Warrant a Stay of All Pretrial Proceedings and Discovery Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly … It is for this reason 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 the commencement of discovery

Tyner v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶ 26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim because "[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one's supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the "law clearly proscribed the actions" they took.

Schiff v. Dorsey

877 F. Supp. 73 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 30, 1994

Whereas officials cloaked in absolute immunity are automatically protected against all suits for monetary damages, officials who are entitled to qualified immunity are amenable to suit only when they violate a “clearly established … Qualified immunity protects government officials when their performance of a discretionary function does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Esposito v. Williamson

854 So. 2d 694 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 25, 2003

Ordinarily, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from personal liability under § 1983. Moody v. City of Key West, 805 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in conduct that violated clearly established law. Id. at 1021 .

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

380 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Jones v. Han

993 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2014

The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Amanda Pierner-Lytge v. Montrell Hobbs

60 F.4th 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Qualified Immunity “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … No. 22-1976 Under prong two, Pierner-Lytge must demonstrate that it was clearly established in April 2020 that probable cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct did not exist.

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

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

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.

Sarita Merricks v. Jeffery Adkisson

785 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2015

The Qualified Immunity Defense and the Clearly Established Requirement The qualified immunity defense “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.

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.