Case law

Marine Maria Quives v. Rick Campbell and Jedd Blessing

934 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

The court held that the defendants are entitled to. qualified immunity because “Campbell and other state officials could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violatr ing a clearly established right … the constitutional issues,” “[e]oncluding that the asserted federal statutory rights were clearly and particularly established at the time of the alleged wrongs....”

Langley v. Adams County

987 F.2d 1473 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 3, 1993

Once a defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” [Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v.] … Plaintiff has thus met her burden of showing clearly established law governing her First Amendment claim. Defendants assert two factual bases for their qualified immunity defense.

JaQuan Bradford v. Ilona Avery

855 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 1, 2017

The district court decided that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bradford could "not prove and has not produced any evidence that defendants should have been aware of a breach of a clearly established … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability unless "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right" and "that right was clearly established

Richard Crouse v. Town of Moncks Corner

848 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 15, 2017

Because the first two prongs of the test are questions of law, an employer is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong cannot be resolved under clearly established law. … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Jesse Redmond v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr.

859 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suits for money damages unless a plaintiff shows both that (i) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (ii) that right was “clearly established … Fourth, Fulwood is entitled to qualified immunity for Redmond’s allegation of bias arising from the nature of his crime because there is no clearly established right for parole- eligible prisoners to be treated equally in

Mercado-Gracia v. United States

District Court, D. New Mexico · May 14, 2024

Petitioner therefore asks the Court to dismiss the firearm charge as unproven as a matter of established federal law. Pet at 5-7. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”).

Chiu v. Plano Independent School District

339 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2003

However, the qualified immunity doctrine only protects officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Objective Reasonableness Although Davis and Criswell violated Kirke and Johnson’s clearly established rights, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were objectively

Falyn Bruce v. Derek Guernsey

777 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

Qualified immunity is available when a defendant’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- No. 14-1352 13  tional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, even when an officer lacks probable cause, he is still entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer “could have reasonably believed that probable cause existed in light of well- established law.” Id.

Lodato v. Ortiz

314 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2004

established right, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is inappropriate in this case. … determine whether the alleged constitutional right is clearly established.

Sample v. Bailey

337 F. Supp. 2d 1012 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 24, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A “Clearly Established” Right? To overcome the bar of quali-fied immunity, a plaintiff must show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Mark Campbell v. Cheatham County Sheriff's Dep't

47 F.4th 468 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2022

Therefore, we turn to whether the right was clearly established. 3 An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violates a constitutional right … “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.”

Kingsmill v. Szewczak

117 F. Supp. 3d 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2015

Qualiñed Immunity Officer Szewczak argues' that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it was not clearly established oh February 9, 2014, that calling a person over to a patrol car and failing to warn that person … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct did not violate clearly-established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.

Wettersten v. Chillicothe City School District Board of Education

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 27, 2022

Kammer, 955 F.3d 520, 540–41 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding parents’ right to make decisions concerning the care and custody of their children without government interference was clearly established). … City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (affirming decision that state statute and regulation excluding children not immunized from school during disease outbreak was constitutional despite parental objection).

Gray v. Baker

399 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

In particular, Baker and Nero argue it was “not ‘clearly established’ statutory law that [they] c[ould] be sued under the FMLA as individuals,” and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity from that claim. … appeal whether the challenged action by the defendant officials [wa]s a violation of federal law at all, clearly established or not.”

Stonecipher v. Valles

759 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, “a plaintiff must properly allege a deprivation of a constitutional right and must further show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Barbara C. Ehrlich v. Town of Glastonbury, Joel White, James Kenny

348 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2003

The Supreme Court’s prescribed inquiry Defendants begin and end their qualified immunity argument with the proposition that the allegedly infringed constitutional right is not “clearly established.” … Ehrlich has not proffered evidence demonstrating the violation of a “clearly-established right[ ] of which an ob *62 jectively reasonable official would have known,” the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and

Rodriguez v. Nazario

719 F. Supp. 52 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 31, 1989

relief; 4 that defendants have failed to establish that they perform discretionary functions which is a requisite for qualified immunity; and that defendants’ actions were violative of clearly established law and therefore … and has not been clearly established on this matter.

O'Donnell v. Knott

283 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2017

qualified immunity because the complaint does not plausibly allege that they violated Plaintiff's clearly established First Amendment rights. … In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights. Accordingly, the detectives' qualified immunity defense will be denied, without prejudice. 10 C.

Waldon v. Borough of Upper Darby

77 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1999

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiffs, of which a reasonable officer would … A qualified immunity claim is ordinarily decided by first determining whether a violation of a constitutional or statutory right is alleged, and then next determining whether that right was clearly established and would have

Matthews v. City of New York

889 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2012

Moreover, “ ‘[e]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable … As noted supra, “the qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law; and the clearly established law of excessive force itself hinges on the reasonableness