Case law

Cole Spencer v. Aaron Pew

117 F.4th 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2024

As to this force, the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity based solely on the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity test. … The district court concluded that Officers Pew and Rozema were shielded by qualified immunity because no clearly established law prohibited the degree of force they used in arresting Spencer.

Beatrice Luna v. Texas Department of Pub Sf

773 F.3d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 19, 2014

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions. . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, plaintiffs must show that Mullenix’s actions violated a constitutional right that was sufficiently clearly established.

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

Rivera-Jimenez v. Pierluisi

362 F.3d 87 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 29, 2004

Qualified Immunity "Denials of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds are reviewed to the extent that the qualified immunity defense turns upon a purely legal question and any disputed … We turn now to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. "The question of whether a right is clearly established is an issue of law for the court to decide."

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.

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.

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.”

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).

Hansen v. Meese

675 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 16, 1987

Further, the court held that qualified immunity was inapplicable because the right at issue was clearly established. Id. at 3037-38 . … The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the “clearly established law” test should not be applied at a level of generality that would undermine the balance struck by the qualified immunity doctrine. Id. at 3038-39 .

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

Brown v. Benefield

757 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 29, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit recognizes three ways that a right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes the constitutional right, (2) a broad statement … If this is not clearly established, then the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

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.”

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.

Randall R. Bradford v. Mike Huckabee

330 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 5, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in suits against them in their individual capacity as long as their actions do not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, to be upheld in a motion to dismiss only when the immunity can be established on the face of the complaint.

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a "clearly established" constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: " '[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means … Because "it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims" (Ruffino v.

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

Rush v. Perryman

579 F.3d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush’s rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush’s right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.