Case law

Erin Lincoln v. City of Colleyville, Texas

887 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2018

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … It follows that these officers—Meeks, Scott, and Barnes—similarly were not bound by any such clearly established law. The district court correctly granted these officers qualified immunity.

Amanda Reich v. City of Elizabethtown, Ky.

945 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … This brings me to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—clearly established law.

Kenney v. Hawaii

109 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 31, 2000

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify the right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … That right is clearly established. See Kelley, 60 F.3d at 667 .

Shemtov Michtavi v. William Scism

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 2015

Appellants appeal that order, and we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a prisoner’s right to treatment of retrograde ejaculation, infertility, or erectile dysfunction is not clearly established … She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need.

Baker v. Schwarb

40 F. Supp. 3d 881 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 19, 2014

Defendants did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B. … , that right was not clearly established.

Fernandors v. District of Columbia

382 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2005

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … Therefore, the only question for the Court is whether Officer Fenton’s alleged conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights so that he would not have qualified immunity.

Dominique Ramsey v. David Rivard

110 F.4th 860 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2024

Rivard argues that qualified immunity bars the plaintiffs’ unduly suggestive identification claim because they cannot show that Rivard’s actions violated their clearly established rights. (Appellant Br. 49.) … First, Rivard gains no immunity for violations of clearly established law by following the prosecutor’s advice. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 495 (1991).

Geraldine Livermore, Personal Representative for the Estate of Roland E. Rohm, Deceased v. Daniel Lubelan and Jerry Ellsworth

476 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”). … To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff *404 must show that the defendant had notice that the manner in which the force was used had been previously proscribed: [T]here is no doubt that [precedent] clearly establishes

Greenwood v. New York

163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court’s conclusion that Greenwood’s property right in his clinical staff privileges was not *121 clearly established and … “Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under

John Leslie Chapman v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, Wyoming Medium Correctional Institution, Robert O. Lampert, Director, Steve Hargett, Warden, Kelli Dolan, CPL Property Officer

2016 WY 5 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id., 555 U.S. at 232, 129 S.Ct. at 815-16. … Summary judgment was therefore appropriate. [¶23] Again, using the analysis for qualified immunity above, Chapman fails to show there is clearly established law that would put Cpl.

Koiro v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

69 F. Supp. 3d 1061 · District Court, D. Nevada · Nov 21, 2014

Second, Defendants argue that, even if Catanese violated the Fourth Amendment, he should still receive qualified immunity because Koiro did not carry his burden of showing that the right violated was clearly established. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Chappell

Walt v. State

751 P.2d 1345 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1988

on the qualified immunity defense. … Haley, 687 P.2d 305 at 316 (Alaska 1984), is entitled to qualified immunity unless his action violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Unzueta v. Steele

291 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 29, 2003

If so, we must subsequently ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the plaintiff does not satisfy either portion of the two-pronged test, the Court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. Gross v. … City of Laramie, 239 F.3d 1183, 1189-90 (10th Cir.2001) (finding qualified immunity for officers who hog-tied an arrestee with diminished capacity because in 1996 there was not a clearly established right to be free from

De Smet v. Snyder

653 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 12, 1987

The plaintiffs, in turn, must overcome the immunity defense by showing that their allegations, if true, did violate constitutional rights clearly established at the time. … of clearly established constitutional rights.

Clark v. Coleman

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 24, 2020

To evaluate qualified immunity claims, the Fourth Circuit has adopted a two-step analysis: (1) Whether a clearly established right has been violated, and (2) whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position “would … Nev. 2018) (“And because it is clearly established that a citizen has the First Amendment right to criticize officers, even with profanity, Dennett is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.”).

In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Supreme Court of Delaware · Aug 1, 2024

Section 1983 and Qualified Immunity. … A plaintiff’s burden under qualified immunity does not end when a constitutional violation is pinpointed; it rests on whether the official should have known that their actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Jonathan Turmon v. Charles Jordan, Individually, and Red Roof Inns, Incorporated

405 F.3d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary duties “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Jordan violated Turmoris Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and because that right was clearly established on March 10, 2001, Jordan is not entitled to qualified immunity on the illegal seizure

Jennings v. Patton

644 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

B The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil, damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … ; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. 3 Id. at 815-16 (citing Saucier v.

Redpath v. City of Overland Park

857 F. Supp. 1448 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 9, 1994

That objective test is in tension with, but not inconsistent with, a claim of qualified immunity where the existence of a violation of the clearly established law depends on the government official’s subjective intent. … When qualified immunity is granted because plaintiffs cannot establish a constitutional violation—rather than on a determination that the law was not clearly established—such a finding is equivalent to a decision on the merits

Snow v. City of El Paso, Texas

501 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officials from both civil damages and trial “if their actions were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Bazan v. … The Court employs a two step process to resolve a qualified immunity defense. First, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established Constitutional *835 right.”