Case law

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis

943 F.3d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 2019

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity applies either where there was no constitutional violation or where the constitutional violation was not clearly established. See id.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

Spooner v. Phoenix

246 Ariz. 119 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 27, 2018

To the extent these actions violate clearly established law or reflect a reckless disregard of Spooner’s rights, they are afforded no protection. … But to the extent Brown’s actions reflect the legitimate exercise of professional judgment, they are discretionary and protected by qualified immunity.

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?

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.

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.

McKinnon v. Gardner

Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 28, 2026

That qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “[A] claim for qualified immunity from liability Albert, 50 Conn.

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.