Case law

Joseph Jones v. City of Jackson, Malcolm McMillin and Les Tannehill

203 F.3d 875 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity asserted in a motion for summary judgment is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … of the clearly established legal rules.

Carol J. Applewhite v. United States Air Force, Randall L. Faulkner, Leonard Ross, and William E. McBride

995 F.2d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 10, 1993

The said officers moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, contending that their acts did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Mrs. … It is now well established that a law-enforcement official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Slone v. Lincoln County

242 F. Supp. 3d 579 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 16, 2017

Generally, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity and is shielded from civil suit if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … whether that right was clearly established at the time of the offense.

Kenneth Bailey v. Shawn T. Swindell

940 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2019

,” and qualified immunity applies. … established’ step of the qualified-immunity analysis.”

Herman Harris v. Zachary Pittman

927 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 18, 2019

that right was not clearly established with the requisite specificity at the time of the incident. … immunity because that right was not "clearly established" with sufficient specificity at the time of the incident.

WVDHHR v. V.P.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Parker v. Blackwell

23 F.4th 517 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2022

Sheriff Blackwell asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … A plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Morgan v.

City of Corinth v. Gladys

916 S.W.2d 618 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 14, 1996

Fairfield filed an original answer asserting his affirmative defense of qualified or official immunity. … The City argues that the establishment of Fairfield’s qualified immunity protects the City from liability that may exist under section 101.021(2) of the Texas Tort Claims Act, which provides governmental liability for “personal

Kerr v. Waddell

183 Ariz. 1 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jul 13, 1995

that they were entitled as a matter of law to qualified immunity. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Trigalet v. Young

54 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 1995

The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Trigalets' substantive due process claim upon concluding that, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established that the officers … The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law under which defendants actions could form the basis of a constitutional claim became clearly established on March 1, 1990, when

Hardesty v. City of Ecorse

623 F. Supp. 2d 855 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 1, 2009

Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to establish either of the two requirements set forth in Saucier, then qualified immunity applies. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . In January 2009, in Pearson v. … Thus, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Second, even if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, qualified immunity applies unless the right was clearly established. Id.

Marshall v. Russell

391 F. Supp. 3d 672 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 20, 2018

Russell alleged he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. ECF No. 55 at 32-34. Sgt. … Qualified immunity.

Joseph D. Leeks v. Lowell K. Cunningham, Mr. Carson P. Bass Joseph A. Kemper M. Press

997 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1993

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the-denial of qualified immunity, finding that as of 1980 it was “unequivocal” that the law as to the forced medication of a pretrial detainee was clearly established. Id. at 688 . … Thus, in assessing appellant’s qualified immunity claim, our concern is whether statutory or case law existed in July 1989 to clearly establish that a county jail pretrial detainee had a right under the Due Process Clause

Mazurkiewicz v. New York City Transit Authority

810 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1993

“The right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been *568 clearly established.” Calamia v. New York, 879 F.2d 1025, 1036 (2d Cir.1989). … Defendants must be objectively unreasonable in believing their acts do not violate plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights for plaintiffs Count Four to escape summary judgment by the defense of qualified immunity

Marshall v. Switzer

900 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 4, 1995

Accordingly, in order to establish the defense of qualified immunity, an official “must satisfy one of two tests: either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established’ rights of which a reasonable person would have … Absent a violation of a “clearly established” right, an official is entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. See, e.g., Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Ronald C. Denius v. Wayne Dunlap and Gary Sadler 1

209 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2000

If the rights were not clearly established, then the official is immune from suit and the claim is dismissed. See Richardson v. … for which Dunlap cannot receive qualified immunity.

Oldridge v. Wichita, Kansas, City of

District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 30, 2022

While an issue of fact as to whether it was reasonably foreseeable that these actions would lead to a violation of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights, qualified immunity requires a plaintiff to prove more than a reasonably … Plaintiff has failed to show under a qualified immunity analysis that Givens, Salcido, and Ramsay violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Cullen Reed Peppers v. Bobby F. Coates, Jr., Buster Williams

887 F.2d 1493 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1989

immunity, defendant must establish that plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact material to the qualified immunity defense. 7 In Mitchell , *1497 the Court stated that in resolving a claim for qualified immunity … ’s commission of acts in violation of plaintiff’s clearly established rights.

Caviness v. Johnson

614 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 14, 2008

Caviness also challenges Johnson’s claim to qualified immunity, contending the law was clearly established that excessive damage to his property can give rise to a constitutional claim and that the seizure of the knives and … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears a heavy burden to establish that a defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula v.

Milfort v. Prevete

3 F. Supp. 3d 14 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 14, 2014

Qualified immunity applies when a government actor’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right, or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiffs … However, because sufficient material facts have been established, the Court will recount the factors compelling its conclusion that Prevete was not entitled to qualified immunity.