Case law

Tatro v. Kervin

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 1, 1994

Ct. at 536 (qualified immunity shields police ______ officers from suit if "'a reasonable officer could have believed [plaintiff's arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting … The police _____ _______ officers did not raise a qualified immunity defense and both parties agree that, given the facts of the case, no qualified immunity issue exists.

Williams v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville

341 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2003

DISCUSSION 12 “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … of his actions was “clearly established.”

Frances A. Warner v. John A. Graham, Duainne S. Bourcy, Wayne J. Anderson and Weldee Baetsch

845 F.2d 179 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 27, 1988

The court then denied the supervisors’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity concluding that Warner’s right to use peyote was clearly established at the time of her termination and that the supervisors should … Even if we were to conclude that Warner had a clearly established constitutional right to use peyote, it is insufficient for immunity purposes to determine only if a “clearly established” constitutional right exists.

Daniel J. Peterson, D/B/A Chiarello Investments, D/B/A Home Equity lending.com v. County Line, Inc. James Houchins and Greg A. Weithoner

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 7, 2008

He asserted that Hayes-Pupko had to overcome his assertion of qualified immunity by proving that he (1) violated her clearly established rights and (2) acted unreasonably or in bad faith in doing so. … Discussion “A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Robinson v. Bibb

840 F.2d 349 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 1988

The question in this case is when does a judicial decision operate to strip a public official of good faith immunity by becoming “clearly established” law. … A police officer’s immunity is qualified, not absolute.

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.

Rosa Cuevas v. City of Tulare

107 F.4th 894 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2024

III Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED.

Paige Ray-Cluney v. Charles Palmer

906 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 9, 2018

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable … Under the clearly established prong, “the burden is on plaintiffs to demonstrate the alleged violation of their [consti- tutional] right[s] was ‘clearly established.’” Id.

Kokesh v. Curlee

14 F.4th 382 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 2021

This is true “even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the [qualified immunity] standard.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014). … B Turning to qualified immunity’s second inquiry—whether a constitutional right was clearly established—we did more in Turner than simply declare that the right to record police exists.

Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police

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 plaintiff’s constitutional right has been established, we next decide whether that right was clearly established.

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.

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.

Kargbo v. Brown, et al.

2013 DNH 170 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 13, 2013

Nor can it conclude that they are entitled to the protections afforded by qualified immunity. … Aug. 5 , 2008) (noting that the malicious and sadistic use of force is always violative of clearly established law, so qualified immunity is rarely available when the parties genuinely dispute whether such force was applied

Mitchell v. Miller

790 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 15, 2015

Clearly Established Mitchell has the burden of demonstrating that as of April 10, 2011, the time of the alleged violation, the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer in Miller's shoes would … The Supreme Court "express[ed] no view as to the correctness of the Court of Appeals' decision on the constitutional question," but held that the right was not clearly established, and Brosseau was entitled to qualified

Africa v. City of Philadelphia

49 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 1995

If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected, to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to ‘ … qualified immunity.

Wrench Transportation Systems, Inc. v. Bradley

340 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 2009

Because we find that Malone's claim does not establish the deprivation of a Constitutional right, we need not determine whether Kennedy and McMahon are entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … . -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-18 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (upholding the two prongs of qualified immunity analysis — that a plaintiff must show a “violation of a constitutional right” and that the right was "clearly established

Hunter Tillis v. Allan H. Brown, Jr.

12 F.4th 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2021

Brown’s use of deadly force was specifically circumscribed by our clearly established Fourth Amendment precedent. He therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity. A. … But for plaintiffs to overcome the bar of qualified immunity, Brown’s conduct must also have violated clearly established law.

Parillo v. Sura

652 F. Supp. 1517 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 13, 1987

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes is a question of law.

Dean Napolitano v. Kim Flynn, Individually and Sheila Prue, Individually and Stonewall, Inc., Kim Flynn, Individually and Sheila Prue, Individually

949 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 22, 1991

Because Vermont interprets qualified immunity as an immunity from suit, we hold that qualified immunity is a collateral right under Vermont law, and we, therefore, have jurisdiction over the Officers’ appeal. … Their actions did not violate any of Napolitano’s clearly established rights under Vermont law. We hold, therefore, that the Officers are entitled to immunity from suit on Napolitano’s state law claims.

Vasquez v. Maloney

990 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 2021

immunity because clearly established law prohibits detaining and frisking a person without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. … 2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”