Case law

Karkut v. Target Corp.

453 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity i. … If a court concludes that an officer’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity.” Id.

Church v. Anderson

249 F. Supp. 3d 963 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 17, 2017

Qualified Immunity 1. Standards for qualified immunity Defendants also seek summary judgment on Church’s claims on the basis of qualified immunity. … Id. at 243-45 , 129 S.Ct. 808 ; accord Bishop, 723 F.3d at 961-62 (starting and ending its analysis of qualified immunity with the second prong of the analysis, the “clearly established right” determination); Hess v.

Leodis Sledge, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Tanesha Leach, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and Heirs at Law v. City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, by and Through Its Mayor, Shirley Washington, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Pine Bluff City Council, by and Through Its Ex-Officio President, Shirley Washington, in Her Official Capacity; Rick Rhoden, in His Official Capacity as Director of Pine Bluff Street Department; And Kelvin Sargent, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Pine Bluff

2022 Ark. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 19, 2022

On appeal, Sledge argues (1) that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because his complaint sufficiently alleged violation of a clearly established statutory right; and … Because Sledge sued the public officials in their official capacities only, qualified immunity is not at issue.

Terri Vinyard v. Steve Wilson

311 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2002

be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” … the law applicable to particular circumstances clearly and to overcome qualified immunity even in the absence of case law.”)

Thoma v. Hickel

947 P.2d 816 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1997

Qualified immunity under federal law protects officials except where it is “clearly established” as of the time of the acts complained of that the acts violated the plaintiffs rights. … If the plaintiffs allegations fail to establish a constitutional claim, the defendant is entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, or, of course, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

William Evans, Jr. v. Brian Krook

106 F.4th 790 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2024

Krook moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In this interlocutory appeal, Krook challenges the order denying qualified immunity.

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

Hutchins v. Peterson

139 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 14, 2001

Qualified immunity as to federal claims Movants’ second argument, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Hutchins’ rights were not clearly established, is similarly without merit. 11 “The doctrine of qualified … “Without a doubt, the right not to be arrested without probable cause is clearly established” for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Halcomb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

526 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2007

If so, the Court then must inquire whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” — that is, whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that [an objectively] reasonable officer would understand … violated established law.

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2004

A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. (Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 201.) … The high court explained that “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his- conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” (Ibid.)

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.”

Butler v. Dowling

750 So. 2d 674 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 22, 1999

There, the court held that the failure to loosen tight handcuffs did not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation. … Dowling's version of the facts, if proven, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Redo v. Sylvestri, 690 So.2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Duffey v. Bryant

950 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 6, 1997

Previous cases clearly established that the failure of Duke and Hop-son to do so was deliberate indifference. Accordingly, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. 15 3. … For two examples of cases that found the "clearly established” requirement satisfied and denied qualified immunity without citing a previous case with similar facts, see Powell v. M.C.

Watkins v. Mitchem

50 So. 3d 485 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 7, 2010

“An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do ‘ “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … ’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

CYBER ZONE E-CAFE, INC. v. King

782 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 22, 2011

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the law was not clearly established in April 2010 that the Plaintiffs’ arrest and seizure was unlawful, Defendant King is entitled to qualified immunity, and all claims against him in his individual capacity shall

Giebel v. Sylvester

244 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

was not clearly established at the time of Sylvester’s actions. … not entitled to qualified immunity.

Gene Flinn v. Elaine Gordon, Dexter Lehtinen

775 F.2d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Once this is established, the official is immune from liability unless the plaintiff can “prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.” Id. … Since Flinn cannot show the loss of any federal right, much less the loss of a “clearly established” right, he has failed to overcome Gordon’s qualified immunity.

López-Ramos v. Municipality of Cataño

556 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2008

The sec ond inquiry is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Rather, it makes the blanket and general assertion that its officers are entitled to immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. 1.

Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson

999 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 1998

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Reynolds violated the Lucases clearly established rights in moving to revoke their probation.

Mathis v. Bess

763 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their personal capacities from liability for discretionary acts provided their conduct did not violate any “clearly established” federal statutory or … Benjamin, a single unpublished decision of a lower court, “clearly established” the law of this circuit for purposes of qualified immunity. See Hawkins v. Steingut, 829 F.2d 317, 321 (2d Cir.1987).