Case law

Halcomb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

526 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2007

If so, the Court then must inquire whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” — that is, whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that [an objectively] reasonable officer would understand … violated established law.

Anders v. Cuevas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 12, 2019

“When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’” … Martuscello, 890 F.3d 77, 94 (2d Cir. 2018) (First Amendment right of prisoner “not to snitch” not clearly established; defendants entitled to qualified immunity).

Lawrence J. Brozik v. Mark A. Kalish

942 F.2d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 1991

II. 4 An official in Kalish's position is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … III. 7 The existence of clearly established law, however, does not end our inquiry.

Daniczek v. Spencer

156 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 11, 2016

In sum, “[qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . … Spencer violated a clearly established rule.

Redwood v. Lierman

331 Ill. App. 3d 1073 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … clearly established at the time the official acted.

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."

Harmon v. Dallas County

248 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2017

immunity (Doc. 26) and the order denying that motion (Doc. 29) and concludes that nature of the challenged conduct was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. … immunity because, at *823 the time Howell was fired, it was not clearly established whether his involvement in the FBI investigation was protected under the First Amendment.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis

88 S.W.3d 641 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 1999

Fain, and Kern Wildenthal, M.D., appellants, contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity. … Appellants moved for partial summary judgment on the section 1983 claims, asserting that Margulis did not plead with specificity enough facts to overcome their assertion of qualified immunity.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

79 F.4th 455 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2023

A panel of this court affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to qualified immunity, concluding “that there was a violation of clearly established law if the jury resolves the factual disputes … “Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. at 423 (citing Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability unless the alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Daren Green v. Heidi Lutz

679 F. App'x 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2017

Two Department employees, Heidi Lutz and Dorothy Filson, cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Cty. of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 788 (9th Cir. 2016) (reiterating the two-prong analysis in qualified immunity cases: (1) whether the official’s conducted violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was “clearly

Hoffman v. Kelz

443 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 3, 2006

Finally, defendant Kelz is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time because plaintiff has alleged facts suggesting that defendant Kelz’s conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights. … that would clearly establish his constitutional rights.

Liberian Community Association v. Lamont

970 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 14, 2020

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … “[W]e have repeatedly held[] that a state statute does not serve as ‘clearly established law’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” Tooly v. Schwaller, 919 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2019).

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.

Nance v. Sammis

586 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 10, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Oct.6, 2009) (finding case law clearly established on this constitutional right as of July 2006).

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.

Edward Furnace v. Paul Sullivan

705 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 17, 2013

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (qualified immunity is appropriate when “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). … Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 240 (4th Cir. 2008) (denying qualified immunity to a prison guard because the right to be free from excessive use of pepper spray was clearly established).

Jordan v. Sinsheimer

403 Mass. 586 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 14, 1988

The defendant asserts that at least qualified immunity is available to him because his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … One issue is whether on clearly established principles of law, he could have reasonably believed his acts to be lawful. Breault v. Chairman of the Bd. of Fire Comm’rs of Springfield, 401 Mass. 26 , 32 (1987).

Finch v. Rapp

38 F.4th 1234 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2022

Clearly Established Having found a constitutional violation, the district court correctly denied qualified immunity because Rapp’s action violated clearly established law. … The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. In Walker v.

Duffey v. Bryant

950 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 6, 1997

Previous cases clearly established that the failure of Duke and Hop-son to do so was deliberate indifference. Accordingly, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. 15 3. … For two examples of cases that found the "clearly established” requirement satisfied and denied qualified immunity without citing a previous case with similar facts, see Powell v. M.C.