Case law

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.

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.

Thomas L. Sluman v. State of Washington

418 P.3d 125 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 22, 2018

Nevertheless, the decisions do not bestow absolute immunity on the officers. In short, Thomas Sluman presents many cases that establish that Trooper Bart Olson violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Davis, focused on whether Officer Danny Davis should receive qualified immunity.

Benavidez v. Shutiva

8 N.M. Ct. App. 95 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

“The granting of qualified immunity results in immunity 5 from suit.” Oldfield v. … Since the law was not clearly established, the 4 defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was 5 reversed. Id. 6 {41} Reichle controls our analysis here.

Brocuglio v. Proulx

478 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 23, 2007

Defendants also complain that I should not have granted summary judgment, because the law was not clearly established with respect to the curtilage issue, and thus the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity involves a three-step analysis: (1) whether the officials violated the plaintiffs constitutional right; (2) whether the law was clearly established with respect to that right; and (3) whether reasonable

Truelove v. Hunt

67 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 29, 1999

After this finding, the Court addressed the qualified immunity question of whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident. … However, the precise contours of the right are not clearly established. See id.

Hernandez v. Skinner

383 F. Supp. 3d 1077 · District Court, D. Montana · May 29, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit unless the plaintiff can show (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … "Qualified immunity is no immunity at all 'if clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." City & Cty. Of S.F. v.

In the Interest of M.K.R., Minor Child, K.R., Mother, B.Y., Father

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Jun 7, 2017

App. 1994) (“Clearly, actions speak louder than words. Intent can be shown through conduct.”). … II is clearly outweighed by the continuing risk of harm posed by F.H.’s unresolved substance abuse issues.”).

United States v. Jeffrey Lynn Franklin

235 F.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2000

establish” that the predicate conviction qualified under § 924(e). … While in some cases a sentencing court properly might cumulate documentation of prior criminal convictions to find that such documentation “clearly establishes” a prior criminal conviction, in the context of an enhancement

Arnette Rodgers v. 36th District Court

529 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2013

Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-step inquiry for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … clearly established law at the time that it was committed.

Delph v. Trent

86 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 8, 2000

The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The basic question for a court adjudicating a defense of qualified immunity, however, is whether official would have reasonably known his conduct violated clearly established law.

Randall v. City of Fairbanks

352 F. Supp. 2d 1028 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 11, 2005

Clearly Established Rights Although Randall has shown that there may have been a violation of a constitutional right, Williamson, nonetheless, is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at … Because the law governing deadly force in these circumstances was not clearly established at the time of the shooting, the Court HOLDS that Wilhamson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Athel B. Cooper, Cross-Appellee v. William E. Smith, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Camden County, Georgia

89 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1996

applicable law was clearly established.” … For Cooper to pierce the qualified immunity protecting Smith, he must show that Smith violated one of Cooper’s “clearly established” rights under federal law. Id.

Hicks v. Feeney

596 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, D. Delaware · Nov 8, 1984

This standard mandates that an official is protected by qualified immunity except when his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. … In a recent decision, the Third Circuit defined “clearly established rights” for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Grice v. McVeigh

873 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

If McVeigh and Farina had a duty to intervene in those circumstances, that duty was not clearly established, and the defendants therefore enjoy qualified immunity on that claim. … Since, as we have already ruled, McVeigh did not violate clearly established law, Farina is entitled to qualified immunity as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is reversed. .

Thomas v. Cannon

289 F. Supp. 3d 1182 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 30, 2018

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ...1213 A. Waiver...1213 1. Markert, Wiley, Cannon...1213 2. Zaro...1214 B. Constitutional Violation...1215 C. Clearly Established Law...1217 1. … The Court nonetheless affirmed qualified immunity for the officers because it recognized this rule was not clearly established in 1997 when the flash-bang was used. Id. at 784 .

Garrett v. Stratman

254 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2001

of clearly established law.” … a violation of clearly established law.”

Daniel Simmonds v. Genesee County

682 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2012

To satisfy the first Saucier prong and establish a constitutional violation to defeat the officers’ claim of qualified immunity, Simmonds “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly … the violation of the constitutional right was clearly established. 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

David M. Mumford v. Joseph Zieba, Judge, in His Official and Individual Capacities Lorain County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division

4 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 1993

Moreover, Judge Zieba argued that he was protected from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established on January 3, 1989 that a chief referee of a domestic relations … Steingut, 829 F.2d 317 (2d Cir.1987), granted state officials qualified immunity when they refused to reappoint a plaintiff to the position of workers’ compensation referee because federal law was not clearly established

Elder v. Holloway

984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.