Case law

Sapp v. Cunningham

847 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 23, 1994

Was the Law “Clearly Established”? … The critical issue before this Court with respect to qualified immunity is whether it can be said that the defendants’ alleged failures to act violated some clearly established law in existence at that time.

Fierro v. City of New York

341 F. App'x 696 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Pataki, 196 F.3d 56 , 66 (2d Cir.1999) (indicating that if a constitutional protection is not clearly established at the time of an official’s alleged conduct, the official will be protected by qualified immunity even if

Bennett v. Murphy

127 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2000

Murphy’s Invocation of Qualified Immunity As is well established, qualified immunity is a doctrine that insulates the holder from trial, not just from liability. … Felsing: We thus hold, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter , that in deciding whether defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of “clearly established law” that is for

Thomas ex rel. D.T. v. City of New Orleans

883 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 2, 2012

The City Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because the Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege a Violation of a Clearly Established Constitutional Right. … The plaintiffs have cited no law to suggest that this conduct violated a clearly established right that would overcome Officer Boyd's invocation of qualified immunity. .

Carolyn Clanton v. Jody Cooper

129 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 17, 1997

Such immunity is “qualified” in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.; Gehl Group v. … If these facts, taken together, do not amount to “coercion” under 'Clearly established law, then Cooper is entitled to qualified immunity.

Moore v. Webster

932 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 1991

for the law to be clearly established. … . *1233 Nevertheless, when deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we need only determine whether there was clearly established law which revealed the wrongfulness of appellees' actions.

Siehl v. City of Johnstown

365 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … immunity analysis-was there clearly established law-in light of their argument that there was no constitutional violation.

Iqbal v. Hasty

490 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2007

A defendant will be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established … clearly established law.”

Mosby v. Moore

716 So. 2d 551 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1998

Alternatively, their basis for the motion was that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claims. … He also ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. 1. Official Capacity ¶ 30.

Ernest Foster, Sr. v. Jeremy Hellawell

908 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2018

In deciding such legal claims, we apply the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity standard. … “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.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Panagoulakos v. Yazzie

741 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … In short, Officer Yazzie is entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law imposed on her a duty to release Panagoulakos following his lawful arrest after the traffic stop. REVERSED. .

Monica Voss v. Gregory Goode

954 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Goode is therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that no probable cause existed to arrest Voss for interference with public duties or any other crime at the time of arrest.

Collins v. School Board of Dade County, Florida

981 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1993

Most important for qualified immunity purposes, Loudermill established no bright line test for when a delay would become a constitutional violation. 4 See generally Barts v. … Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1194 (11th Cir.1989) ("Harlow's 'clearly established' standard requires that a bright line be crossed" if defense of qualified immunity is to be overcome). 11 No controlling decision involved facts

Collins v. Ainsworth

382 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

Clearly established Fourth Amendment law. … Clearly established Fourteenth Amendment law.

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.

In Re Scott County Master Docket

618 F. Supp. 1534 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 2, 1985

plaintiffs have asserted violations of clearly established rights. … Yet a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity can defeat a section 1983 action prior to discovery only if the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant violated clearly established rights.

Howell v. Evans

922 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 1991

Absent from the order was any discussion of what the clearly established law was at the time of Howell’s death, an inquiry essential to a determination of immunity. … Generally Applicable Law As stated above, Harlow established the test for qualified immunity.

Turpin v. Ray

319 F. Supp. 3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 2018

"clearly established" under the circumstances. … Callahan , Officers Rowley and Strange may still claim qualified immunity as long as the alleged violation was not clearly established at the time. Brown v. Fogle , 819 F.Supp.2d 23 , 28-29 (D.D.C. 2011).

Thibodeaux v. City of Port Arthur

783 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jan 24, 1992

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, Harlow v. … The court is to determine immunity from suit based on the pleadings applying an “objective legal reasonableness” test, assessing the action in the light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it occurred

Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama

121 F.3d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights … With regard to the excessive force claim, the magistrate judge concluded that Estress and Wright were not entitled to qualified immunity since "on February 11, 1994, the law was clearly established that use of excessive