Case law

JUNKERT v. Massey

610 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 21, 2010

Massey is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct in applying for a search warrant. See Hinnen v. Kelly, 992 F.2d 140, 144 (7th Cir. 1993). In this context, the test for qualified immunity comes from Malley v. … We have never clearly held that an affidavit materially similar to Massey’s failed to establish probable cause.

Brown v. Nationsbank Corp.

188 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 1999

engaged in conduct that violated the clearly- established law.” … Qualified immunity Although neither the pleadings, the district court’s order nor the briefs develop the analysis, it is obvious that defendants have a qualified immunity defense to the Bivens claims.

Akeem Washington v. Shannon Rivera

939 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2019

But we conclude that Rivera’s actions did not violate Washington’s clearly established rights, and that she is thus entitled to qualified immunity. … a clearly established right.

Phillip Lucas . v. State of Tennessee Michael E. Collins v. State of Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 4, 2004

Qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, and shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Ross v. Correction Officers John & Jane Does 1-5

610 F. App'x 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 20, 2015

Accordingly, defendant Mullings is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because our focus, in analyzing whether qual *77 ified immunity applies, is on whether the right asserted by Ross was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we need not address Kingsley's possible implications

Anderson v. Roberts

823 F.2d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 1987

In Wright, there was no question that the law clearly established certain constitutional rights. … Thus, Sheriff Bolin is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Erin Lincoln v. City of Colleyville, Texas

874 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

Although Erin identifies the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, it is not clear that her contention was that the right to be free from excessive force was clearly established in this case. … Accordingly, Erin waived argument as to the clearly established law prong and thus cannot overcome qualified immunity. 92 Regardless, we cannot on this record conclude that Erin 89 See Melear v.

Gidley et al. v. Oliveri

2009 DNH 094 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 25, 2009

“[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis . . . has two aspects. … Clearly established right “Public officials are . . . entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Jamie Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe

792 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2015

to qualified immunity on B.W.’s claim. *1193 See United States ex rel. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

Davis v. Scherer

468 U.S. 183 · Supreme Court of the United States · Aug 16, 1984

It reasoned that proof that an official had violated clearly established constitutional rights was not the “sole way” to overcome the official’s claim of qualified immunity. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Ibid.(footnote deleted).

Jonas Magnotti v. Walter J. Kuntz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer in the Police Department of New Haven, Ct

918 F.2d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 8, 1990

Even where the permissible scope of activity is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to believe his acts were lawful. See Anderson v. … But, well-established principles instruct that qualified immunity is appropriate if the affidavit accompanying the warrant is sufficient, after correcting for material misstatements or omissions, to support a reasonable officer

Lewis v. Walley

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 27, 2026

The district court denied defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for the Fourth Amendment search claim, thus denying Walley’s defense of qualified immunity (“QI”). … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of [QI] protects public officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statu- tory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Dominguez v. Hendley

545 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2008

It is somewhat unusual to encounter a qualified immunity defense this late in the proceedings, because qualified immunity is normally raised during the pretrial phase so that the public official can avoid the burdens of trial … There was and is no disputing that such conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights. Hendley merely hoped that the jury would credit his version of what happened rather than Dominguez’s.

Grantham v. Trickey

21 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994

established" for the purposes of qualified immunity. … balancing test, it can rarely be considered "clearly established" for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.... 22 ...

Jason Mucha v. Jutiki Jackson

786 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 27, 2015

They rely for their defense of qualified immunity on Wisconsin’s emergency detention statute, Wis. … They were not violating any clearly established law, whether constitutional or statutory, federal or state.

Sigman v. Town Of Chapel Hill

161 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 2, 1998

immunity. 16 Police officers are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach "clearly established statutory or constitutional … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 , (1982) (qualified immunity exists when "conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Ulysse v. Stokes

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2021

As a result, Ulysse does not point to a case clearly establishing that Al-Hinawi’s alleged conduct here violated federal law, which entitles to Officer to qualified immunity. Ulysse turns to Taylor v. … By comparison to the objective qualified immunity test under § 1983, Hargraves v. D.C., 134 F.

Florida Highway Patrol, etc. v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, etc.

Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 23, 2020

We also agree with FHP that, precisely because sovereign immunity includes immunity from suit, entitlement to sovereign immunity should be established as early in the litigation as possible. … where a legal duty has been established.

Jordan v. State of Tenn.

738 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 7, 1990

If there is no such constitutional duty, then the defendants are protected by qualified immunity since they could not have violated any “clearly established constitutional duty.” See Eugene D. v. … Qualified Immunity Even if this Court were to agree with the Second Circuit that voluntary residents of a state institution are owed a constitutional duty of safe conditions, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Carrillo v. State

169 Ariz. 126 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 5, 1991

immunity. … In the answer, defendants asserted a defense of qualified immunity, which is available only to a government official sued in a personal rather than official capacity.