Case law

Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

634 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2011

This involves two questions: “(1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendant violated a con- stitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established … Whether a Violated Right Was Clearly Established The second inquiry, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, is whether the constitutional standards at issue were clearly established at the time the alleged violation oc- curred.

Wilson v. Meeks

98 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 1996

Suffice that the first appeal established the qualified immunity of the individual police officers from all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that “there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to

Leach v. New Mexico Junior College

132 N.M. 106 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2002

Second, we determine whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. … Defendants have therefore failed to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity.

Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff v. Hays County, Texas and Paul Hastings, Sheriff, in His Individual and Official Capacity

154 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1998

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time the challenged action occurred, the federal law proscribing it was clearly established not only as an abstract matter but also in a more particularized sense … In order to overcome Hastings’s claim of qualified immunity, Stefanoff must specifically allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v.

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

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips

878 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

Whether that Right was Clearly Established Even if Officer Phillips violated Latits’s constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation—June … Thus, this case fails to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine. III.

McKay v. City of Hayward

949 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2013

In the absence of clearly established law, Officers Cox, Purnell, and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. … Parks, 383 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity to officers who failed to intervene where law clearly established use of force was excessive).

Robert Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati

595 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

Page 7 Kennedy failed to show that his clearly established rights were violated. … alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”).

Engle v. Townsley

49 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

Public 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.” Harlow v. … A reasonable official would have known that firing Engle in such circumstances would violate her clearly established first amendment rights.

Jerome Berry v. Robb Sherman Roger Rutledge Susan Embree James J. Burgess Richard Fongemie, Sgt.

365 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 22, 2004

However, when an official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known, qualified immunity does not prevent suit by the injured party. … The more critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was “objectively legally reasonable” for the prison officials to believe that his conduct did not violate the inmate’s clearly established Eighth Amendment

Fifield v. Eaton

669 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 20, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their performance of their discretionary duties does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that it would not violate clearly established rights.

McAdoo v. Texas

565 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 2005

“A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action, provided the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question.” Id.

Thompson v. Spikes

663 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 22, 1987

to trial, and that entitlement to qualified immunity turns on "the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … been violated are all “clearly established.”

Michael Kent v. County of Oakland

810 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2016

The district court found that the deputies’ use of the taser was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established law, and it denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified and governmental immunity … Rather, “a defendant denied qualified immunity may appeal ... *390 [only] if the issue on appeal is whether the plaintiffs, facts, taken at their best, show that the defendant violated clearly established law.”

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2002

However, district employees enjoy a qualified immunity from such liability unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Berrios-Cintron v. Cordero

976 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 27, 1997

Whether qualified immunity will protect an official from being held personally liable will depend on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Cohalan in further analysis of the qualified immunity issue.

Rodriguez v. Panarello

119 F. Supp. 3d 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2015

clearly established. … Moreover, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the right allegedly violated must have been clearly established at the time of the violation.

Kies v. City of Aurora

149 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2001

The Seventh Circuit has noted in the context of qualified immunity that if the plaintiffs’ initial pleadings themselves, taken as true, fail to adequately allege the violation of any clearly established right, dismissal for … The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Moore v. Williamsburg Regional Hospital

560 F.3d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 12, 2009

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994) ("The cen- tral purpose of affording public officials qualified immunity from suit is to protect them ‘from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of … These claims fail because, even if plain- tiff established the other elements of the torts, plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to establish that defendants’ actions were without justification or were for an improper