Case law

Anthony Gant v. Daniel Hartman

924 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2019

Benner, 913 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of qualified immunity). … Officer Hartman claims that he is entitled to qualified im- munity because his actions did not violate Gant’s constitu- tional rights and, even if they did, those rights were not clearly established on or before August 23,

James Boyd v. Mickey Owen and Leslie Foott

481 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2007

That does not end the inquiry, however, because qualified immunity nevertheless protects the defendants unless the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established. … He has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the constitutional violation was clearly established, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Trafton v. City of Woodbury

799 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2011

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. 12 Montanez, 603 F.3d at 250 . … See id. at 823 (finding that because the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not clearly established, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, without having to answer the question of whether the officers violated

Russell v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 16, 2021

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … An officer may successfully invoke the defense of qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Stevenson v. Toce

113 F.4th 494 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 2024

Clearly established Next, Stevenson must demonstrate that the violation of his rights was “clearly established.” Cooper, 844 F.3d at 522. … Jackson clearly established that such circumstances, if proven true, violate the Eighth Amendment.

Gardetto v. Mason

854 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jun 7, 1994

immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established rights. … Finally, the Court also finds that this corpus of law was certainly clearly established at the time of the events in question such that the motion for qualified immunity on this claim must also be denied. iii.

Monetti v. City of Seattle

875 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity Analysis Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil damages for the performance of their discretionary functions. … Even if the constitutional rights of the plaintiff were violated, unless the right is clearly established, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Maness v. Daily

Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2013

Fitzgerald.17 Under this standard, qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established.”27 In short, because Maness cannot show pursuant to his theory of liability that the troopers violated any of his clearly established rights, the troopers are protected by qualified immunity from Maness’s excessive

Denno Ex Rel. Denno v. School Board of Volusia County

959 F. Supp. 1481 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 3, 1997

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. Mitchell v. … In this case, the Court finds that Roberts and Wallace are entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the law is not so “clearly established” in such a “concrete and factually defined context” to make

Valdez v. Farmon

766 F. Supp. 1529 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1991

event to compel her to give up that clearly established right. … A defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity if: 1. the law allegedly violated was not clearly established (a legal issue); 2. assuming that the law was clearly established, a reasonable person in the same circumstances

Vinning-El v. Evans

657 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2011

The remaining subject is whether chaplain Sutton has qualified immunity, which comprises two questions: first whether the plaintiff has a good constitutional claim, and second whether the right in question was “clearly established … Immunity protects public employees who make reasonable errors in applying even clearly established law. See, e.g., Malley v.

Durr v. Slator

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 2, 2021

Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 231 (2d Cir. 2014) ("An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury"). … "Even if the force is objectively unreasonable, an officer may still be eligible for qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that her action did not violate clearly established law

Bouchard v. Whetstone

772 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 24, 2011

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must establish “that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right.” Albright v. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Officers Whetstone and Jimenez assert the defense of qualified immunity. *1359 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability

Buchwald v. University of New Mexico School of Medicine

159 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 20, 1998

to qualified immunity. … Finally, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Klepper and Atencio’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity because we conclude that the law was not clearly established.

Jeremiah Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners

2025 ME 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 4, 2025

Even construed strictly because it is in derogation of the common law, the immunity statute is clearly broad in scope. See Jamison v. … As to Hogan’s assertion that the immunity provision violates the child’s constitutional right of bodily integrity, “[i]n the context of COVID-19, courts across the country have concluded that Jacobson established that there

Escalera-Salgado v. United States

911 F.3d 38 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 19, 2018

in Bivens claims by qualified immunity."2 Solis-Alarcón v. … The district court therefore did not err in dismissing Escalera's claim on the clearly-established step of qualified immunity analysis.4 III.

Jared Clinton v. Ryan Garrett

49 F.4th 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 21, 2022

It does not require us to determine whether the defendants violated a “clearly established right” and, as it imposes a higher standard of care, it affords less protection than does qualified immunity. See Baldwin v. … We must still determine whether that right was clearly established.

Paul Romero v. Damon Fay, Bob Stover, Chief of Police, and Albuquerque, City of John Doe, Albuquerque Police Officers

45 F.3d 1472 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

In his response, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had violated clearly established law of which a reasonable police officer would have known. … Specifically, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs claims because Plaintiff failed to show that: (1) Defendants arrested Plaintiff without probable cause; (2) clearly established law

Hambright v. Kemper

705 F. App'x 461 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 8, 2017

immunity because, as of 2013, it was not clearly established that rescheduling the feast eight days after Ramadan’s end violated the First Amendment. … Finally Hambright challenges the magistrate judge’s ruling that Wahlstrom and Nurdeen were entitled to qualified immunity, given that Hambright had no clearly established right to have the feast served within three days of

Duffie v. Wichita County

990 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2013

immunity analysis and asks whether, nevertheless, qualified immunity is appropriate because the Officer Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable “in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question … As already stated, qualified immunity is a defense available to public officials performing discretionary functions “... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of