Case law

Maestas v. State of Colorado

351 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2003

was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that [his] conduct violated that right.” … Maestas possesses a clearly established right to be free of such harassment. Sh.A. ex rel. J.A. v. Tucumcari Mun.

Binay v. Bettendorf

601 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2010

“Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Silberstein v. … Clearly Established Constitutional Right After determining that Plaintiffs have raised sufficient facts to support a Fourth Amendment violation, we next ask “whether the right was clearly established . . . in light

Latits v. Phillips

298 Mich. App. 109 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2012

Therefore, the Court concluded that Brosseau was entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983 because it was not clearly established that her actions violated the Constitution. Brosseau, 543 US at 201 . … Of course, unlike Brosseau , the case at bar does not involve a claim under § 1983 or issues of qualified immunity. But Brosseau does provide guidance on two points.

Williams v. Miniard

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 27, 2023

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the rights to be free from unduly tight restraints and from gratuitous violence when already restrained is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.”); Kostrzewa v.

Heaney v. Roberts

147 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

Roberts’ contention - with respect to qualified immunity is that his actions were objectively reasonable, and that on September 18, 2013, the law was not clearly established such that the actions he took constituted a First … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Wyatt v.

Waldon v. Borough of Upper Darby

77 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1999

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiffs, of which a reasonable officer would … A qualified immunity claim is ordinarily decided by first determining whether a violation of a constitutional or statutory right is alleged, and then next determining whether that right was clearly established and would have

Garvey v. Vermilion

2012 Ohio 1258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2012

‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the  5 allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’” … be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Morris v. ZEFFERI

601 F.3d 805 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [42 U.S.C. §] 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of … To defeat Zefferi’s qualified immunity claim, Morris must show Zefferi potentially violated Morris’s clearly established constitutional right as a pretrial detainee to be free from being transported for ninety minutes in

Stephen Hopkins v. Anthony Nichols

37 F.4th 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

These errors, perhaps understandably, led the district court not to discuss the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity as it pertained to the seizure of Mrs. Hopkins. … Hopkins may have amounted to a clearly established constitutional violation. For those reasons, we conclude that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to defendants for the alleged seizure of Mrs.

Rosalina Calonge v. City of San Jose

104 F.4th 39 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2024

We also conclude that the relevant law was clearly established at the time, so Officer Carboni is not entitled to qualified immunity. … CITY OF SAN JOSE immunity at the summary judgment stage because there were genuine disputes of material fact. She also argued that qualified immunity was inappropriate because the relevant law was clearly established.

Young v. City of Providence

396 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 2, 2005

Camilo-Robles, 151 F.3d at 6 . 5 More specifically, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and … The Second Prong: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Jones v. Fountain

121 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 7, 2000

The court will now proceed to the qualified immunity discussion. IV. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his third motion for summary judgment, defendant argues Jones’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. … In assessing a qualified immunity claim the district court must determine “whether (1) the plaintiffs have asserted a constitutional or statutory violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established

McGrath v. Gillis

44 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … . *570 In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a cognizable violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Melissa Knibbs v. Anthony Momphard, Jr.

30 F.4th 200 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 531. … Deputy Momphard would still be entitled to qualified immunity if he could show that the constitutional right he violated was not “‘clearly established’ at the time of [his] alleged misconduct.”

Kopec v. Tate

230 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2002

Defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … must be “clearly established.”

Mario Garcia v. County of Riverside

817 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 2016

Amendment were clearly established. … asserts was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Elizabeth Roque-Rodriguez v. Hon. Jose Lema Moya

926 F.2d 103 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 1991

This is clearly an error of law, since for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity, th[e] court had to determine whether on [sic] 1985, plaintiff had a clearly established right under the First Amendment to be promoted … and that the failure to promote her violated this clearly established right.

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

949 F. Supp. 456 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Nov 22, 1996

The first step in the inquiry of the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right. Siegert v. … Dec. 16, 1994). 1) Was the law clearly established?

WV Division of Corrections, Scott Patterson and Jason Walton v. P.R.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2019

The parties disagree about whether Policy Directive 332.02 constitutes a “clearly established law” for purposes of defeating qualified immunity. … whether or not a right is clearly established, has resulted in the “conver[sion of] qualified immunity to near absolute immunity,” Rebalancing Harlow: A New Approach to Qualified Immunity in the Fourth Amendment, 68 Chase

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.