Case law

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.

Rios v. Scott

100 F. App'x 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2004

PER CURIAM:* Joshua Rio s and Mary Canales (“the Relatives”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Officer Sippel is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right for an officer to immediately intervene when an armed inmate attacks another inmate, as the officer may need

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.

Janice Brown v. Andrew Knapp

75 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

The district court denied both motions, finding that the MSP Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had collectively violated Brown’s clearly established right to a prompt probable cause determination … We found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because, even if he had violated Roberson’s constitutional rights, “Riverside and its progeny [did] not clearly establish that an officer in [the trooper’s] position

Teri Dean v. Anne Precythe

79 F.4th 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2023

The availability of qualified immunity depends on the answer to two questions. First, did Precythe violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established? See Morgan v. … Audrain County, 968 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the plaintiff “has the burden to show that” the law is clearly established).

S.L. Ex Rel. Lenderman v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Board of Police Commissioners

725 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

State officials enjoy qualified immunity from a § 1983 action if their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Harris is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , but

Trevis Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega

748 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2014

And, for the first time in this case, the defendants asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the alternative ground that the law did not “clearly establish” that their actions were unconstitutional. … CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW The only remaining issue relevant to the defendants’ qualified immunity defense is whether, by September 9, 2009, preexisting law clearly established that the defendants’ conduct violated

Helton v. Hawkins

12 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 15, 1998

As established by the Supreme Court in Harlow , the test for “good faith” or qualified immunity • turns primarily on the objective reasonableness of the officials’ conduct in light of established law: “governmental officials … Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart 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

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

Dickey v. United States of America

174 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2016

However, qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Defendants argue that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case was whether it was clearly established that Officer Alexander was prohibited from alleged touching or manipulating

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.”

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.

Lockridge v. Board Of Trustees, Of The University Of Arkansas

315 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. 3 On appeal, Dr. Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. … This court has broadly considered what constitutes "clearly established law" for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. Sexton v. Martin, 210 F.3d 905 , 909 (8th Cir.2000); Boswell v.

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

Pohto v. Leiser

738 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 5, 1990

DEFENDANT LEISER’S MOTION ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY GROUNDS “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability when the acts complained of violate no clearly established … In light of this Court’s aforementioned analysis of qualified immunity, this Court recognizes that, similar to Defendant Leiser, these board members violated no clearly established constitutional law.

James Stickley v. Karl Byrd

703 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … -3- clearly established when the alleged misconduct occurred.” Williams v. Herron, 687 F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir. 2012).

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.

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.

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.