Case law

Jones v. Clark

630 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2011

- eral right at issue was clearly established at the time that the alleged violation occurred. … III As we mentioned, Officers Clark and Kaminski are entitled to immunity if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a rea- sonable person would have known.

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.

Buchanan v. Metz

132 F. Supp. 3d 922 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 14, 2015

violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

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.

Gilmore v. Bostic

659 F. Supp. 2d 755 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 22, 2009

in a prison’s sex offender treatment program is not clearly established. … immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Hubbard v. Board of Education

19 Kan. App. 2d 853 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jun 24, 1994

In this case, the defendants argue they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court correctly held the Board had not violated a clearly established law and was entitled to qualified immunity for its actions.

Troy Rokusek v. Cody Jansen

899 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2018

To overcome Trooper Jansen’s claim of qualified immunity, Rokusek must show the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Gilmore v. … We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Braswell v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

369 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 26, 2005

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1377 stitutional rights of which a reasonable … This, however, does not end the inquiry with respect to the Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity originated in Harlow v.

Kaufhold v. Bright

835 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 1993

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for money damages when their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known … To analyze a claim of qualified immunity, a court should: (1) identify the specific constitutional right implicated; (2) determine that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) consider

Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office

149 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 2002

The standards for establishing a prima facie case of negligence have been clearly established. The Court of Appeals stated in Bobo v. … Clearly, the Court would not have had to instruct the circuit court to make a qualified immunity determination absent a malice finding if no immunity existed for State constitutional torts. See Lee v.

Nunez Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced

389 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars all monetary claims against them. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person

Octavio Delgado v. Police Chief Arthur Jones and Deputy Chief Monica Ray

282 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 2002

Moreover, in the context of a qualified immunity defense, “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.” Donovan, 17 F.3d at 951 -52 (citing Rakovich v. … After establishing that the plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right, the second level of inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis involves whether the law was “clearly established” at the time

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.

Hicks v. P.O. Jenkins 8917

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2024

[Dkt. 63 at 4-7.]4 Second, his actions did not violate a clearly established right, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Id. at 8-10.] … This is insufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Kisela v.

Garcia v. Montgomery County

145 F. Supp. 3d 492 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 5, 2015

Clearly Established Right Although the Court finds a constitutional right to video record public" police activities, Officers Baxter and Malouf would still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established … Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir.2011)), it is the law of the case that such a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Rexford Kipps, Carol Kipps and Kyle Kipps v. James Caillier, Ray Authement, Nelson J. Schexnayder, Jr., and Nelson Stokley

197 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 6, 1999

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if defendants violated Kipps’s clearly established constitutional right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable.

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.

Brandon Peterson v. Cmdr. Roger Heinen

89 F.4th 628 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2023

To decide whether the district court should have granted qualified immunity, we ask if the facts “demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right” and if “the right was clearly established at the time of … Because the facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Peterson, do not support the violation of a clearly established right, we reverse.

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank

953 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

II A federal official’s assertion of qualified immunity based upon the plaintiff’s failure to state a “violation of clearly established law” is a question of law. Mitchell v. … It is true that “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Brady v.

Gordon v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2024

App. 1998)—are not binding, nor do they muddle the clearly established principles set forth above so as to support the District’s claim of qualified immunity. … proving that the defendant “violated clearly established rights” and is not entitled to qualified immunity.