Case law

Francine Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police Department, a Municipal Corporation, Officer David Miller

389 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2004

Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir.2002) (recognizing that “right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes”); Turek v. … Constitutional Right Clearly Established Once a potential violation of a plaintiffs constitutional right has been established, we next decide whether that right was clearly established.

Patton v. Wood County Humane Society

154 Ohio App. 3d 670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2003

immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank Of California

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

II 5 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. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

Bates v. Harvey

518 F.3d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2008

immunity from this claim because the law was clearly established that he could not enter Mrs. … . . can clearly establish the law.”

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service

572 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

The R & R concluded that, with respect to the individual Agents, Plaintiffs had pleaded a violation of clearly established First Amendment law. … But even assuming that orders deferring a ruling on qualified immunity are immediately appealable in some circumstances, those circumstances are clearly-not present here.

Brad Williams v. Horace Walters

772 F.3d 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 2014

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … established constitutional rights, Walters is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Spears v. Garcia

263 Conn. 22 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 1, 2003

When a municipal employee is sued, he or she may assert qualified immunity as a common-law defense. … While a benefit accrues to the municipality when the employee successfully establishes qualified immunity, by permitting the municipality to avoid liability for indemnification, the defense is intended to benefit the employee

Owens v. City of New York

183 A.D.3d 903 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 2020

If the officer's actions did not violate a clearly established right or law, or if it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that his actions did not violate a clearly established right or law, his or her actions … event, he is entitled to qualified immunity for any such alleged failure ( see Boyd v City of New York , 149 AD3d at 686 ).

Mangual v. Toledo

536 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 15, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Public officials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the violation such that a reasonable

Phillips v. Thomas

555 So. 2d 81 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jul 21, 1989

Thus, we move to the question of whether the appellees are entitled to qualified or substantive immunity. III. Substantive Immunity. … This evidence clearly establishes the fact that Thomas's alleged negligence arose out of the performance of a ministerial act, and, therefore, that Thomas is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Evans v. Gordon

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 2024

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … official violated clearly established federal law.).

Martinez v. Harper

14 Brief Times Rptr. 1486 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1990

In sum, once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … If the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of showing how the defendant violated a clearly established right, the motion for summary judgment must be granted.

Pennington v. Teufel

396 F. Supp. 2d 715 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 26, 2005

Because Plaintiffs have not alleged and cannot show that any of these Defendants violated any clearly established federal law, the Court agrees that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery’ ”) (quoting Mitchell v.

Upton v. Thompson

930 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 1991

The district court concluded such rights were clearly established and denied the Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment. Sheriff Thompson appeals the denial of qualified immunity. II. … We conclude therefore that since the law was not clearly established in 1986 the sheriffs in these cases are protected by qualified immunity. What about 1991?

Gregory Lambert, as Administrator of the Estate of Harrison Lambert v. Town of Merrimack, et al.

2019 DNH 053 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 6, 2018

Where, as here, the movant raises a qualified immunity defense, the nonmoving party has the burden of demonstrating that the law was clearly established during the relevant time period. See Mitchell v. … Construed generously, the Estate's objection contains citations to six decisions bearing on the clearly established prong 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.

Theresa J. HEDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF TIPPECANOE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

890 F.2d 4 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 1989

Following an unsuccessful motion to dismiss, Defendant Gibson’s counsel moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the constitutional rights Hedge alleged were not clearly established at … of qualified immunity.

Lefemine v. Davis

732 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity a. … Individual Capacity Defendants allege that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law indicating that their conduct would violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights. (Defs. Mem.

Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley

912 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2019

Turning to the issue of qualified immunity, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that IDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex- cept when required by penological interests. Mr. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil “liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per- son would have known.’”

Robert J. Alfonso v. Dr. John C. Lund

783 F.2d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 1986

The finding on competency of the doctor to testify was one for determination by the court, Fed.R.Evid. 104(a); this finding should not be reversed unless it was clearly erroneous. See United States v. … Defendants argued that the proof was defective because the medical evidence failed to establish that defendants’ negligence was the cause of death.