Case law

Vinning-El v. Evans

657 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2011

The remaining subject is whether chaplain Sutton has qualified immunity, which comprises two questions: first whether the plaintiff has a good constitutional claim, and second whether the right in question was “clearly established … Immunity protects public employees who make reasonable errors in applying even clearly established law. See, e.g., Malley v.

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.”

Sanzone v. Gray

884 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

They all raised a qualified-immunity defense, arguing that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. … To decide whether Gray is entitled to qualified immunity, this court must ask: (1) whether his conduct violated Koster's Fourth Amendment right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Lawrenz v. James

852 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 1994

Thus, if the applicable law was not clearly established, or if the law was clearly established and Defendant James did not violate that law in terminating Plaintiff, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendant James is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law in terminating Plaintiff.

Pekrun v. Puente

172 F. Supp. 3d 1039 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 23, 2016

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 person would have known … In support of his argument for qualified immunity, Puente cites Gause v.

George MacKie v. Katrin Rouse-Weir / George MacKie v. Robert Joss

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 24, 2025

Second, both legal precedent and the statutory framework of c. 123A establish that the role of qualified examiners is not only essential, but quasi judicial. … established statutory or constitutional right for the purpose of determining whether qualified immunity applied. [13] In his complaint, Mackie alleged that Joss "was hired by the [DOC] as a [qualified examiner] and assigned

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

868 F.3d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2017

The district court also stated that qualified immunity did not apply because the law as of 1984 and 1985 clearly established that an investigator’s fabrication of evidence violated a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Ireland v. Tunis

907 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 5, 1995

Alternatively, Defendants contend that they should prevail as a matter of law even if they are entitled only to qualified immunity for their acts, because those acts did not violate any “clearly established rights” of the … The Court reiterated that qualified immunity rests upon “objective legal reasonableness,” and stated that allegedly unlawful official action must be “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at

Celeste James, Barry James v. City of Douglas, Ga., Clyde Purvis, John Doe--Clifford Thomas

941 F.2d 1539 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1991

Purvis and Thomas appeal the denial of qualified immunity, asserting that they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. III. DISCUSSION A. … Qualified Immunity Purvis and Thomas appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id .

Pinter v. City of New York

710 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2010

Once we determine whether the right at issue was clearly established for the particular context that the officer faced, the qualified immunity inquiry is complete. … Pinter’s Right Was Clearly Established “For a constitutional right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the ‘contours of the right must be sufficiently

Patricia Jackson v. Andreas Schultz Richard Cadoura

429 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2005

On September 3, 2004, the district court denied the EMTs’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court held that Jackson alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … To defeat qualified immunity, Jackson must show a violation of a constitutional right, and that the constitutional right was clearly established. Brosseau v.

Edrei v. Maguire

892 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2018

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity "unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the … The remaining question is whether the right was clearly established.

Paul W. Cagle Guy R. Epperson Steven A. McCullom Terry Norwood and Jeffrey L. Parker v. Dan Gilley

957 F.2d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 1992

Standard of Review Gilley appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Mitchell v. … Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.

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 16 As stated above, Harlow established the test for qualified immunity.

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.

Tyron Brown v. Lee Lucas

753 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 2014

On this score, appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. Whatever rights appellants had to receive exculpatory evidence prior to entering their pleas was not clearly established. … in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.' ” Feathers v.