Case law

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 .

Cuervo v. Sorenson

112 F.4th 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in dismissing her FAC on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants ask us to affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … We now examine the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. We conclude Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Williams v. Board of County Commissioners

125 N.M. 445 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1998

Qualified immunity protects officials whose conduct does not contravene “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

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

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.”

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.

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

Kristin Hart v. City of Redwood City

99 F.4th 543 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2024

Moreover, even if Officer Gomez’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct did not violate clearly established law. … To deny qualified immunity, not only must a constitutional right be violated, but that right must be “clearly established” at the time. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 62–63.

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

690 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988

clearly established at the time of the incident. … The case law under which defendants are to be tested as to whether they had probable cause to arrest McGaughey for disorderly conduct under the facts of this case was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Feasel v. Willis

904 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 9, 1995

It is the Plaintiff who must overcome the claim to qualified immunity. The Defendant filed two briefs on the issue of qualified immunity. … Creighton, supra, the terminology “clearly established” has an important application to any claim of qualified immunity. Anderson v. Creighton, supra, cited with favor in Malley v.

Cottrell v. Caldwell

85 F.3d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 3, 1996

An example of such an issue is "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant … whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established."

Jo Anne Allison v. Dept. of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was `clearly established'"). … The clearly established law of Simon is relevant to determining whether the defendants acted reasonably at the time of Allison's discharge (the issue in this limited qualified immunity appeal), but will control the merits

Edward Sialoi v. City of San Diego

823 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 2016

Whether the constitutional right was clearly established As with the three teenagers, the background circumstances on which the defendants rely to establish qualified immunity (the officers presence in a high-crime … Thus, Sandoval’s discussion of clearly established law applies equally here.

Hays v. Ellis

331 F. Supp. 2d 1303 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 23, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Having so concluded, the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Nita Gordon v. Keith Bierenga

20 F.4th 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2021

Under the familiar test for qualified immunity, a public official is immune from suit unless the plaintiff establishes: (1) a constitutional violation; and (2) that the right at issue was “clearly established” when the event … Even when a defendant violates a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the right at issue was “clearly established[.]” Id. (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232).

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.

Auriemma v. Rice

895 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1990

We must now turn to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry and determine whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity inquiry of whether a constitutional right is clearly established.

Michael Wigginton, Jr. v. University of Mississipp

964 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

The district court erred when it denied defendants’ motion for qualified immunity and concluded that Wigginton had a clearly-established property interest. … We regularly grant qualified immunity in substantive due process cases where the plaintiff fails to establish a clearly- established property interest. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Univ. of N. Tex.

Adams v. NaphCare, Inc.

246 F. Supp. 3d 1128 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 31, 2017

As the Magistrate Judge noted, state actors are entitled to qualified immunity from such claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … immunity, since it was not clearly established that the agency head bore such responsibility for her subordinates.”

McCall v. Williams

59 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 16, 1999

Plaintiff maintains that his right to be free from the application of handcuffs which were too tight was clearly established on the date of the incident. … Just as the Supreme Court found that the officials in Wilson had violated the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, yet they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right had not been clearly established at