Case law

Cruz v. Cervantez

96 F.4th 806 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2024

As for the second prong, “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 … Jury Instructions add an “objective unreasonableness” element into the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, they do not accurately reflect the law.

Francisco Carrillo, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles

798 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

The officers filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, arguing it was not clearly established in 1984 that they were bound by Brady’s disclosure requirements. … Ditsch moved for summary judgment, arguing he was entitled to qualified immunity on Carrillo’s Brady claim because it was not clearly established in 1991 that Brady 16 CARRILLO V. CTY.

Buchanan v. Ford

638 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 19, 1986

If an official establishes “the objective reasonableness of [his] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” he can have summary judgment. Id. … Plaintiff has not cited a different “clearly established” legal standard by which to evaluate defendant’s conduct.

Mason v. Arizona

260 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 28, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity: whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity seeks to balance these two competing interests by protecting public officials from personal liability as long as they do not violate clearly established federal law.

Wells v. Bonner

45 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1995

, they alternatively contend that they are entitled to claim qualified immunity because Wells has failed to show that they violated any clearly established constitutional right. … In this immunity appeal, we must next determine whether Wells's proffered evidence demonstrates the basis for the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert, 500 U.S.

Howze v. Virginia Polytechnic

901 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 12, 1995

Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … For qualified immunity purposes, however, the record is sufficient to hold that, even if the speech is ultimately decided to be protected, that right was not clearly established in 1992 and 1993.

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.

Frederick A. Siegert, ph.d. v. H. Melvyn Gilley, ph.d.

895 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1990

The court concluded that “[Gil-ley’s] qualified immunity defense therefore fails,” id., and that Siegert had established a proper basis for a Bivens claim. Id. at 1419. Defendant then filed this appeal. … Instead, to overcome the qualified immunity that ordinarily attaches to government officials performing discretionary functions, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Waller v. State

64 Wash. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1992

The Meyers court determined that the proper qualified immunity test was whether the conduct complained of "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … The qualified immunity question is whether the caseworkers' actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Meyers , at 1158.

Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho

31 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity gives the Officers qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wernecke v. Garcia

591 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2009

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that officials’ conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’ ” Id. at 350 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. … “[A]n official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350 .

Jamila Russell v. Superior Court of the Virgin I

905 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 2018

plead a violation of clearly established law. … the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.’”

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

296 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 1, 2017

In order to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff's allegations must describe a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right and the right must be clearly established at the time of the defendants' … Before engaging the qualified immunity analysis, the Supreme Court remarked: "[I]t is again necessary to reiterate the longstanding principle that 'clearly established law' should not be defined 'at a high level of generality

Perez-Olivo v. Gonzalez

384 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 26, 2005

The first prong of this test establishes that the qualified immunity defense provides government officials with a shield from liability “for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … After finding that there is a clearly established right, the second prong of the qualified immunity test examines the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct in light of clearly established federal law. Malley v.

WALKER v. REGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

trooper was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate a clearly established right). … No. 201) where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that, for the purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]o be clearly established, a right must be so apparent that ‘every reasonable official would understand that what

Galvez v. Bruce

552 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2008

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are performing discretionary functions and their actions “‘[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Supreme Court has instructed that courts should not proceed to the third step of the qualified immunity inquiry – whether the law at the time of the events clearly established such a violation – unless they find that

Conner v. Rodriguez

891 F. Supp. 2d 1228 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 8, 2011

is entitled to qualified immunity. … City of Madera, 655 F.Supp.2d 1109 (E.D.Cal.2009), granted the officer qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that accidental use of a pistol instead of a taser violated the Fourth Amendment, and the circuit

Alexander v. Margolis

921 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 1, 1995

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that a defense of qualified immunity depends upon the reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established … In his response to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, he has not alleged how the defendants’ actions alleged in his complaint have violated clearly established 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,

Logan v. Sycamore Community School Board of Education

780 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity 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 … cannot violate clearly established constitutional rights as conduct that would “shock the conscience” (doc. 64).