Case law

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

Quintana v. City and County of Denver

District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 22, 2021

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Defendants Perez and Alexander violated a clearly established right by detaining Plaintiff, she has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Individual Defendants violated a clearly established right, Plaintiff has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity.

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.

Baptist Health Medical Group, Inc. v. John Mitchell Farmer, M.D.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Nov 15, 2024

both bad faith and actual malice.4 Toler, 458 S.W.3d at 283. 4 We recognize that the term “qualified immunity” often refers to the doctrine of “qualified official immunity,” which is the immunity from tort liability … Farmer also did not show that Baptist Health intended to cause injury to him in violation of his clearly established rights.

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

Kevin Chestnut v. Officer Dawain Wallace

947 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 21, 2020

When Wallace moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, a defense that protects an individual defendant from suit when his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, see White … Wallace’s questioning and detention of Chestnut was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Officer Wallace is thus entitled to 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.

Watkins v. United States Postal Employee

611 F. App'x 549 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 4, 2015

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In considering whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must decide whether the facts alleged show the defendant violated a constitutional right and whether the right was clearly established.

LAURO LINES s.r.l. v. Chasser

490 U.S. 495 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 22, 1989

And claims of qualified immunity may be pursued by immediate appeal, because qualified immunity too “is an immunity from suit.” Id., at 526 (emphasis in original). … S., at 524 , and held that the immunity from service of process defendant asserted did not amount to an immunity from suit — even though service was essential to the trial court’s jurisdiction over the defendant.

Ferreira v. Westchester County

917 F. Supp. 209 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1996

Immunity Defense Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the right — to be protected from warrantless searches absent probable cause — was clearly established.

Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey

316 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1998

Neither side contends the law regarding probable cause to arrest plaintiff was not clearly established. … Under these circumstances, it was error to decide the issue of qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Butler v. City Of Norman

992 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

official violated the clearly established law. … The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument 2 In Mitchell the Court held: Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

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.

Hemphill v. Kincheloe

987 F.2d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 1993

Prison officials who have implemented a digital rectal probe policy are entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of the clearly established law at the time, a reasonable official could have believed that his conduct was … To determine whether this standard is satisfied, we recently established a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Bobby Williams v. Robert B. Greifinger, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer of the New York State Department of Correctional Services

97 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 15, 1996

Under the law of qualified immunity, govern- • ment officials may only be sued for violations of “clearly established” rules of federal law. Harlow v. … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is thus appropriate only if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed in

Witt v. West Virginia State Police, Troop 2

633 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 4, 2011

"[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Iko v. … That is, that the facts "viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmov- ing party," i.e., Witt, demonstrate that the troopers’ conduct violated no "clearly established" right. Winfield, 106 F.3d at 529.

Schmelz v. Monroe County

954 F.2d 1540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1992

Good faith qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government employees from suit for actions that “ ‘legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated’ ” and the public interest would … Once qualified immunity is asserted by the defendants, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established that the defendants’ acts rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” Edwards, 867 F.2d at 1275 .

Don Waldrop v. David C. Evans, Frank Fodor, M.D., T.G. Smith, M.D.

871 F.2d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 1989

The court then concluded that be *1034 cause a prisoner’s right to psychiatric care was clearly established under the Eighth Amendment, appellants could not rely on the defense of qualified immunity. Id. at 846-47 . … violation of clearly established law.