Case law

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established "that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

Anaya Serbia v. Lausell

646 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 11, 1986

The Supreme Court in Davis stated that: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Because the “clearly established” test has not been met the defendants met the requirements of qualified immunity and are therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for money damages.

Khorrami v. Rolince

539 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2008

Qualified immunity is the right to be free at the earliest point at which the court can be sure that the government official's conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that any reasonable … In an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, the first question is "whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of `clearly established law.'"

Ronald Mitchell v. Justin Schlabach

864 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Second, was the right, clearly established at the time of the violation?” Id. Government officials are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity unless the answer to both questions is yes. See id. *421 A. … at the time he acted. 3 We hold that they were not, The Supreme Court very recently reminded the lower courts that an officer’s actions are against “clearly established” law for purposes of qualified immunity only when “

Hill ex rel. Estate of Loggins v. Carroll County

467 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Dec 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ … If not, “the officer is entitled to qualified *701 immunity, and we need not consider whether the asserted right was ‘clearly established.’ ” Chavez v.

Miguel Reynaga Hernandez v. Derrek Skinner

969 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2020

Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)), the court held that Reynaga’s Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, and denied both Hernandez and Skinner qualified immunity, id … The second prong in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (1994).

Mitchell v. Village Of Matteson

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2020

Qualified Immunity Dumais and Reyes argue that, even if Mitchell has stated a claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity on both § 1983 claims. … Qualified immunity applies unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 546.

J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Nation

61 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 14, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualiñed Immunity Analysis.

Goolsby v. Dist. of Columbia

317 F. Supp. 3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 2018

The Court will once more exercise its discretion to begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether any constitutional violation here was clearly established. … False Arrest Beginning with the false arrest claims, the Court will again start with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether any violation by the Dispatchers was clearly established.

Grenning v. Klemme

34 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[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 … Harrington would not be entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from arbitrary mail searches was clearly established in 2010. (ECF No. 56 at 17-18).

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

690 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988

clearly established at the time of the incident. … The case law under which defendants are to be tested as to whether they had probable cause to arrest McGaughey for disorderly conduct under the facts of this case was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Monica Voss v. Gregory Goode

954 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Goode is therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that no probable cause existed to arrest Voss for interference with public duties or any other crime at the time of arrest.

Leibson v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

84 Ohio App. 3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials under the objective standard which tests whether their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Cody Jones v. City of Elyria, Ohio

947 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2020

Standard Of Review For Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability for official acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Walker v. … As this collection of rights is clearly established, the two officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the wrongful-arrest claim. b. Mitchell.

Saiger v. City of Chicago

37 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 19, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess ‘the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved ... when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights.

Peoples v. Fischer

898 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 26, 2012

Qualified Immunity Agency officials performing discretionary functions are generally granted qualified immunity and are immune from suit provided that “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … claim. 44 To *625 succeed on their claim for qualified immunity, Bezio and Rock must show that from the “face of the complaint they did not violate a clearly established right of which they should have known.” 45 Defendants

Gray v. Detroit City

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

Officer Gross is Entitled to Qualified Immunity This Court has adopted a three step analysis in determining when qualified immunity applies. Champion v. … Officer Gross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Baptiste v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2019

Therefore, a qualified immunity analysis is not necessary. … violate any clearly established right of Plaintiff.

Falkner v. Houston

974 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 6, 1997

The only issue to be decided by the court “is purely a legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … For the right to be clearly established, “[t]he 'contours' of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right ...

Montville v. Lewis

87 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir.1995), and, finding that the defendants’ conduct did not violate “clearly established law” and thus was shielded by qualified immunity, we reverse. … In light of our conclusion that qualified immunity was proper as to the September search, it necessarily follows that using information gained during that inspection was reasonable and did not violate clearly established