Case law

Steven Hill v. William Shelander

992 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 1993

In that instance, Shelander would not have violated Hill’s clearly established constitutional rights, and he would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Constitutional Standards.

Howard Linden v. City of Southfield, Mich.

75 F.4th 597 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2023

And for qualified immunity purposes, any lack of clarity in Willis would only support the First Responders’ position that Linden has failed to identify a “clearly established” right. Sumpter, 868 F.3d at 480. … Unpublished cases cannot clearly establish law for purposes of qualified immunity. See Bell v. City of Southfield, 37 F.4th 362, 367 (6th Cir. 2022).

Spiker v. Allegheny County Board of Probation & Parole

920 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2013

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or … Whittaker may be entitled to qualified immunity for these actions, however, if it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer in her position that those actions violated clearly established law.

Marshall v. Board of County Commissioners for Johnson County

912 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jan 22, 1996

in a qualified immunity case according to clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

Zimmerman v. Doran

807 F.3d 178 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … We have held that “ ‘[consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest, but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.

Taylor v. Rogich

45 F. Supp. 3d 223 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 2014

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.... … The Court deter *227 mined that “Brosseau’s actions fell in the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force [and that qualified immunity applied because] cases by no means clearly established] that Brosseau’s conduct

Pekrun v. Puente

172 F. Supp. 3d 1039 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 23, 2016

Qualified immunity “protects 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 have known … In support of his argument for qualified immunity, Puente cites Gause v.

Van Beek v. Robinson

879 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2012

Clearly Established Law To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must also demonstrate that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation. … Defendants claim that the detention and search of Plaintiff is not “clearly established” as unlawful, and they, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court disagrees.

Brannum Ex Rel. Brannum v. Overton County School Board

516 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, public officials cannot be held liable for violating a person’s constitutional rights unless the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged improper conduct. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Supreme Court articulated the meaning of “clearly established” in the context of the defense of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently

Young v. County of Fulton

999 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 6, 1998

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established right of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendants Pape, Lockwood, Johannes, and Hasenfuss, are therefore immune from liability under qualified immunity doctrine.

Liska v. Dart

60 F. Supp. 3d 889 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 2014

“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 rights of which a reasonable person … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, a court considers “(1) whether the plaintiffs allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at

Mich. Interlock, LLC v. Alcohol Detection Sys., LLC

360 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 27, 2018

Qualified immunity "shield[s]" public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In other words, Secretary Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity in her personal capacity because, at the time of the Order, it was not clearly established that she might violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Hemry v. Ross

62 F.4th 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “(1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Soza v. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Fierro v. City of New York

341 F. App'x 696 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Pataki, 196 F.3d 56 , 66 (2d Cir.1999) (indicating that if a constitutional protection is not clearly established at the time of an official’s alleged conduct, the official will be protected by qualified immunity even if

Maxwell v. MAYOR & ALDER. OF SAVANNAH

226 Ga. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 5, 1997

Despite this finding, however, we conclude that Gellatly was immune from the § 1983 claim in this case. Gellatly’s qualified immunity defense is governed by federal law. Forney v. Purvis, 190 Ga. … For the law to be *708 clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal “rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Thomas A. Munz v. Tobin Michael, Deputy U.S. Marshal Kirk Papenthien, Deputy U.S. Marshal, David R. Hansen, U.S. District Judge

28 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

Second, defendants argue that *798 the district court improperly denied their qualified immunity defense because Munz’s allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation of a constitutional right clearly established … “This court has ... taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry....” Boswell v.

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey and Jerry Howard, Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey Steve Vincent

932 F.2d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 1991

This court also held that Vincent and Mackey were not entitled to qualified immunity because they knowingly acted outside the scope of their employment and violated a clearly established due process right. … Qualified Immunity In Merritt I , this court held that neither Vincent nor Mackey was entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly

Robinson v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 34 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity from suit must be granted when the law or right allegedly violated is not clearly established. Conner v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 , 1492 (9th Cir. 1990).

Long v. Slaton

508 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2007

, violated no clearly established *584 right. … Montoute is a qualified immunity decision.