Case law

Hung Lam v. City of San Jose

869 F.3d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 2017

Finding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Lam, demonstrated a constitutional violation of clearly established law, the district court denied Officer West’s motion based on qualified immunity.2 Officer … demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.”

Hadley v. Gutierrez

526 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 2008

Discussion Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory … We turn now to the second inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis, whether the right to be free from excessive force was clearly established. B.

Jones v. Nolin (INMATE 1)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 13, 2020

“The purpose of the qualified immunity defense is to protect[] government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Eleventh Circuit has determined that the law is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity “only by decisions of the U.S.

Smith v. Lee

73 F.4th 376 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2023

of clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Farid v. Ellen

593 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 2010

For qualified immunity purposes, however, we must more precisely define the rights at issue, and only then determine whether they were “clearly established.” … For qualified immunity purposes, however, there is a separate question, which is whether the right violated by this conduct was clearly established.

Barham v. Ramsey

338 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established … This lack of clearly established law is relevant both to determining the “reasonableness” of an officer’s actions and whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Floyd B. Hutton, Anna v. Hutton v. Sheriff Thomas Strickland, Individually and as Sheriff of Holmes County, Florida

919 F.2d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 1990

The qualified immunity shield protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The district court’s order denies summary judgment on qualified immunity as follows: Qualified Immunity.

Wright v. Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 2024

Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 734–35 (7th Cir. 2014) 5 Defendants again assert that qualified immunity precludes Wright from proceeding on his § 1983 claim. … LeVan, 967 F.3d 584, 590 (7th Cir. 2020) (qualified immunity applies if the “well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law”).

William Evans, Jr. v. Brian Krook

106 F.4th 790 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2024

Krook moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In this interlocutory appeal, Krook challenges the order denying qualified immunity.

Perry v. Woodruff County Sheriff Department ex rel. Barker

858 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 5, 2017

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from liability for civil damages so long as their'conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have … Accordingly, Pennycook does not control this case, and we conclude that Perry’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force was clearly established in August 2009 such that Wolfe was not entitled to qualified immunity

Karkut v. Target Corp.

453 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity i. … If a court concludes that an officer’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity.” Id.

F. Buddie Contracting, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Community College District

31 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability or civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, it is clear that the existence of an authorizing state law does not alter the qualified immunity analysis.

Butler v. Dowling

750 So. 2d 674 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 22, 1999

There, the court held that the failure to loosen tight handcuffs did not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation. … Dowling's version of the facts, if proven, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Redo v. Sylvestri, 690 So.2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

117 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 17, 2015

Bader are trying to suggest that district courts should, whenever possible, decide qualified immunity on the clearly established prong. … The Supreme Court established the qualified immunity defense in Pierson v.

Richard Rockwell v. City of Garland, Texas

664 F.3d 985 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2011

The burden is on the Rockwells to rebut the officers’ qualified-immunity defense “by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the [officers’] allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” Id. … Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871 (5th Cir.1997) ("[Wjhere the complained of conduct is a law enforcement warrantless search of a residence, qualified immunity turns not only on whether it was then clearly established that such a

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

Akinnagbe v. City of New York

128 F. Supp. 3d 539 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available if an officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware.” … is no clearly established right being violated.

Curro v. Watson

884 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 28, 1995

If the law at the time of the alleged violation was clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity generally will fail, since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his or her conduct. … Indeed, a violation of clearly established law will defeat qualified immunity. See Davis, 468 U.S. at 197 , 104 5. Ct. at 3020-21.

Lamont Warren v. Joseph L. Dwyer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer in the Police Dept. Of Hartford, Ct

906 F.2d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 25, 1990

Qualified Immunity We now turn to Warren’s assertion that the defense of qualified immunity should never have been sent to the jury. … Even where the law is “clearly established" and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is “clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him at the

Omar Paez v. Claudia Mulvey

915 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2019

The arresting officer would be entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes that “(1) [she] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of [her] conduct was ‘clearly … Since there was no Fourth Amendment violation, much less a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation, Breeden and Sullivan are entitled to qualified immunity as well.