Case law

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

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.

Felder v. Allen

29 So. 3d 897 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Aug 14, 2009

and/or qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct of the defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

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.

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.

Pauly Ex Rel. Estate of Pauly v. White

814 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2016

They all argued they were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff estate could not show Samuel’s claimed Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established or violated, and in any event their actions were objectively … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established

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

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.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

841 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2012

When determining whether a given constitutional right was “clearly established” for the purposes of establishing qualified immunity, “we look to cases from the Supreme Court and [the United States Court of Appeals … However, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

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.

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

Grider v. City of Auburn, Ala.

618 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2010

Qualified and State-Law Immunity Doctrines As to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, “[qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly … Courts utilize a two-part framework to evaluate qualified immunity defenses. 19 One inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Hope v.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Jacqueline Abel, Cross-Appellants v. Harold Miller, Cross-Appellees

824 F.2d 1522 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1987

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district judge stated: “I have thrown it out.” Id. at 1645. “I think there is a clearly established right ... [w]ith respect to all of the claims.” Id. at 1646. … We recently explained: [The Harlow qualified immunity] test would have little bite if a right “clearly established” at any level of generality could survive it.