Case law

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. .

Eva Raffucci Alvarado v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Digno C. Giraud Rivera v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Etc.

816 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 24, 1987

“An official is entitled to immunity if, at the time of the challenged action, the statutory or constitutional right allegedly violated was not ‘clearly established.’ ” Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d at 166 (quoting Harlow v. … Therefore, because her actions did not violate any clearly established federal due process rights, Sonia Zayas is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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. .

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.

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. 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.

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

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).

Walter Melton v. David Abston

841 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Sullivan is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mercado v.

Cody Jones v. City of Elyria, Ohio

947 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2020

Standard Of Review For Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability for official acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Walker v. … As this collection of rights is clearly established, the two officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the wrongful-arrest claim. b. Mitchell.

Redmond v. Crowther

882 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

“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 … Clearly Established Even if we assume a constitutional violation occurred, moreover, the officers would still be entitled to qualified immunity because no case clearly establishes this right.

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.