Case law

Gudger v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2015

ANALYSIS Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Gudger’s residence violated clearly established law.

Willingham v. Crooke

412 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

This is known as the defense of qualified immunity. 13 Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, Ms. … immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Marriott v. USD 204, Bonner Springs-Edwardsville

289 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 8, 2017

Defendants further claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that video recording in a public classroom is a violation of constitutional rights. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show "(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant's

Ruby Hicks v. Doris Scott

958 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2020

She further contends that the defendants should be denied qualified immunity because the right to be free from warrantless entry into an apartment was clearly established and there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether … To that end, “[a]n officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed’ that the search was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information the searching

Latits v. Phillips

298 Mich. App. 109 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2012

Therefore, the Court concluded that Brosseau was entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983 because it was not clearly established that her actions violated the Constitution. Brosseau, 543 US at 201 . … Of course, unlike Brosseau , the case at bar does not involve a claim under § 1983 or issues of qualified immunity. But Brosseau does provide guidance on two points.

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

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

Roberts v. Source for Public Data

606 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 1, 2008

“Clearly-established” rights are at issue in determining qualified immunity. See discussion of Qualified Immunity, infra. … Qualified Immunity Finally, Davis argues that Plaintiffs’ DPPA claim against him is barred by qualified immunity.

Crump v. Passaic County

147 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2015

(2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Courts have been instructed “not to define clearly established law at 'a high level of generality.” Id. There is no clearly established law that the alleged conduct here violated the Fourth Amendment.

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.

Massey v. Banning Unified School District

256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 28, 2003

If a violation has been alleged, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 200-201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … In their motion, Defendants focus their qualified immunity argument on the contention that the right to be free of sexual orientation-based discrimination is not clearly established because there is no “closely analogous

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

Poolaw v. Marcantel

565 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 4, 2009

Concluding that these Fourth Amendment principles were clearly established when the incidents occurred, the court denied qualified immunity. Marcantel and Hix now appeal. … City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205, 1211-12 (10th Cir.2008) (“[T]he clearly established weight of authority from other courts” establishes a right for the purposes of qualified immunity.).

Strathie v. Department of Transportation of Pennsylvania

547 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

Thus, under Wood , the immunity defense would be unavailable to defendants if the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … that their actions would violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Mills v. City of Shreveport

58 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their performance of discretionary functions, unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.' See Ontiveros v. … clearly established right.

Johnson v. Waters

317 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 11, 2004

be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. Id.

Joe Carollo v. Luigi Boria

833 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2016

the alleged violation “clearly established” those rights (the “immunity” prong). … “So conceived, the object of the ‘clearly established’ immunity standard is not different from that of ‘fair warning,’” United States v.

Stella v. Kelley

63 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 23, 1995

Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity limits a plaintiff's damages against state actors "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The meaning of the adjectival phrase "clearly 4 established," as it operates in the qualified immunity arena, has not always been clearly established.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 10, 2002

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Praisner v. State

189 Conn. App. 540 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 30, 2019

The state argues that because the plaintiff has not established that he falls clearly within any of the classifications of individuals specified therein, sover- eign immunity bars his action for monetary relief. … To avoid dismissal, the allega- tions of his complaint, construed in their most favorable light, must establish either that his indemnification action falls clearly within a statutory waiver of sover- eign immunity or that