Case law

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

Monique Wilkerson v. Thedious Seymour

736 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2013

DISCUSSION “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established federal statutory … To avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff’s allegations, supported by admissible evidence, must demonstrate both (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the violation was clearly established

Swint v. City of Wadley

5 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1993

However, these factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time' of the challenged actions … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming

297 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2012

Therefore, when the immunity granted in MCL 333.26424(a) is read in context with MCL 333.26422(b) and (c), it is plain that the immunity was not intended to exempt qualified medical-marijuana users from federal prosecutions … The CSA provisions do not preempt the MMMA’s grant of immunity as found in MCL 333.26424(a) because it is well established that Congress cannot require the states to enforce federal law.

Blue v. Koren

865 F. Supp. 169 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 13, 1994

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity must be addressed first, because if Defendants are immune we do not need to assess Plaintiffs substantive claims. … These three cases are not clearly instructive on the qualified immunity standard to be applied in a retaliation case.

Soto v. Bautista

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2023

Clearly Established Law We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … Notwithstanding the prior analysis, Zuniga and Bautista are still “entitled to qualified immunity unless” Soto demonstrated that the right in question was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Deborah Audra Skousen v. Brighton High School, Paul Rambo, a Michigan State Trooper

305 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 26, 2002

We do, however, retain jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, which requires a determination of whether a given set of facts violates a clearly established right. Mat-tox, 183 F.3d at 519 . … all, and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established, before proceeding to the qualified immunity question).

Lombardi Rest Home, Inc. v. Richter

63 Conn. App. 646 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 5, 2001

II In addition, the defendants raise the question of whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. … . . . assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Paul Scinto, Sr. v. Warden Stansberry

841 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 4, 2016

to qualified immunity. … The Seventh Circuit, for example, has held that the subjective prong of the Farmer test and the objective, clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test “effectively collapse into one” when the plaintiff raises

Foley v. University of Houston System

324 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. Harlow v. … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appel-lees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Edwards v. Department of Transportation

66 Wash. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 22, 1992

Qualified Immunity. … On the other hand, if the law was clearly established and the conduct of the official is violative of an individual's statutory or constitutional rights the immunity defense should fail. Harlow v.

Siggers v. Alex

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 24, 2021

Qualified Immunity The parties dispute Alex’s entitlement to qualified immunity. … Because the right was clearly established by 1984, Alex is entitled to qualified immunity only if the facts—taken in the light most favorable to Siggers—show that Alex’s conduct did not violate Brady.

Kvech v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety

987 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 30, 2013

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Bey v. Tennessee Department of Correction

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 28, 2020

“An answer of ‘yes’ to both questions defeats qualified immunity, while an answer of ‘no’ to either question results in a grant of qualified immunity.” Haley v. Elsmere Police Dep’t, 452 F. … Despite the factual similarities to Plaintiff’s case, the law was not clearly established under the First Amendment.

Ayeni Ex Rel. Ayeni v. CBS Inc.

848 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 7, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Agent Mottola. … Qualified Immunity of CBS and Jor-gensen. Both CBS and Jorgensen claim qualified immunity.

Webb v. Haas

665 A.2d 1005 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 10, 1995

Haas contends that he is protected from the Webbs’ action by the doctrine of qualified immunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 8 because he has not violated a clearly established right of the Webbs’. … Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “ ‘government officials performing discretionary functions[] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Petta v. Rivera

143 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

Regarding the applicability of qualified immunity, we merely observed that “[u]se of excessive force in making an arrest violates clearly established rights, and the doctrine of qualified immunity therefore does not shield … Once an officer uses objectively unreasonable force to effect an arrest, he loses his qualified immunity, whether the other elements of an excessive force claim are clearly established or not.

Achterhof v. Selvaggio

757 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 27, 1991

In searching for clearly established constitutional rights for qualified immunity purposes, a district court ... must find binding precedent by the Supreme Court, its court of appeals or itself. … In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law.

Burbank v. Davis

227 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 2002

The second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the First Circuit’s three-part qualified immunity standard the “clearly established” element has two prongs: one, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and, two, whether a reasonable

MCCRIMMON v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because settled law does not clearly establish that four instances of the opening of legal mail over a twenty-one-month period amounts to a pattern or practice … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.