Case law

Bailey ex rel. K.A. v. Preston

702 F. App'x 210 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 13, 2017

The instant defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their use of force was “objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” 13 “[Wjhile the right to *213 be … Appellants' entire argument on this second prong of the qualified immunity test is that ‘it is clearly established in the law that citizens are protected against unjustified, excessive police force.'

Bean v. City of Buffalo

822 F. Supp. 1016 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 28, 1993

These defendants argued that, given their version of the facts, plaintiffs decedent had no clearly established constitutional right to be protected from the force that was used against her, and that they had an objectively … Furthermore, such an argument would fly in the face of the clearly established principle that police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for shootings of unarmed individuals who pose no substantial threat of death

Roberts v. Source for Public Data

606 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 1, 2008

“Clearly-established” rights are at issue in determining qualified immunity. See discussion of Qualified Immunity, infra. … Qualified Immunity Finally, Davis argues that Plaintiffs’ DPPA claim against him is barred by qualified immunity.

Dennis Ryno v. City of Waynesville

58 F.4th 995 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 26, 2023

They argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Ryno failed to show any Fourth Amendment violation, and even if he did, it was not clearly established. … While the issue of probable cause addresses the first, constitutional-violation prong, “the issue of arguable probable cause is properly part of the resolution of qualified immunity’s second prong, the clearly established

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

802 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2015

Clearly established law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we ask whether it was clearly established in October 2010 that using deadly force against a person in circumstances like those here … established law, and Officer Carson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jesse Redmond v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr.

859 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suits for money damages unless a plaintiff shows both that (i) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (ii) that right was “clearly established … Fourth, Fulwood is entitled to qualified immunity for Redmond’s allegation of bias arising from the nature of his crime because there is no clearly established right for parole- eligible prisoners to be treated equally in

Carroll v. Robinson

178 Ariz. 453 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 12, 1994

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability in a section 1983 action for conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Whether the legal right allegedly violated was clearly established is a question of law; whether a reasonable official would know that he or she was violating that clearly established law is a question for the jury.

Ruby Hicks v. Doris Scott

958 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2020

She further contends that the defendants should be denied qualified immunity because the right to be free from warrantless entry into an apartment was clearly established and there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether … To that end, “[a]n officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed’ that the search was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information the searching

Pitt v. District of Columbia

558 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2008

In engaging in a qualified immunity analysis, the Court “must determine whether a constitutional right has been violated before moving to the analysis of whether a right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant … Accordingly, Detective Bovino is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Marriott v. USD 204, Bonner Springs-Edwardsville

289 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 8, 2017

Defendants further claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that video recording in a public classroom is a violation of constitutional rights. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show "(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant's

Keylon v. City of Albuquerque

535 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 5, 2008

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)], the Court reconsidered the standard it previously had established for the affirmative defense of qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity.” Lutz v. Weld County Sch. … The clearly established test is whether the officer acted objectively reasonably. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19.

C.B. v. Sonora School District

691 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity. Defendants move to dismiss the Eighth Cause' of Action on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under Section 1983. … Qualified immunity serves to shield 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

Baker v. Clearwater County

District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 3, 2022

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, unless the officer’s conduct 1) violated a constitutional right, and 2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … Thus, both of the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims brought against them individually.

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.

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

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.

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation Inc.

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts. … Without more involvement in the experiments, they did not violate any of Bibeau’s clearly established rights, and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Richard Frenchman v. Herbert Saloum

236 F. App'x 235 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 31, 2007

The district court based its summary judgment decision on qualified immunity. Upon de novo review, we affirm. See K.D. v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”); Logan v.