Case law

Kenneth Harold Swipies v. Frank Kofka

348 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 3, 2003

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v. … We review the denial of a summary judgment motion claiming qualified immunity only to the extent the denial turns on an issue of law. See Behrens v.

Pierce v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections

284 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2003

Of course, the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right advocated by the plaintiff is clearly established, not whether a defendant’s conduct is not clearly established. … The test for whether a right is clearly established was set out by the Supreme Court: “[C]learly established rights, for purpose of qualified immunity, are ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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

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

Inouye v. Kemna

504 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2007

Qualified immunity from civil suit is available to government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The district court suggests that Kerr did not provide adequate notice because the court there granted qualified immunity, holding that the law was not yet clearly established.

Kely Wilkins, Individually and as the Successor in Interest to Decedent William Alberto Wilkins William Alberto Wilkins, Individually the Estate of William Wilkins William Randolph Wilkins, a Minor, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kely Wilkins Fernando Wilkins, Individually Josefina Wilkins, Individually v. City of Oakland v. Tim Scarrott, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland Andrew Koponen, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland

350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where `clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers' actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.

Gregory May v. Michael F. Sheahan

226 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2000

Ill Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity that shields them from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time in question.

Moran v. State Of Washington

147 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 2, 1998

established" to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow and its progeny. … established" to defeat Senn's assertion of qualified immunity.

Carico v. Benton, Ireland, & Stovall

68 F. App'x 632 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established.

Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft

580 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

AUKidd’s Right Was “Clearly Established.” … Ohio, was certainly clearly established.

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

St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J v. Loveland Ex Rel. Loveland

395 P.3d 751 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 22, 2017

We then assess whether the Lovelands have alleged facts sufficient to establish that the zip line was a dangerous condition, thereby depriving the District of immunity from suit here. … Even so, this is an argument about the design of the playground, which section 24-10-103(1.3) clearly prohibits.

Aviles v. Department of the Army

666 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Sims Ex Rel. Sims v. Forehand

112 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 5, 2000

If a question of law is unsettled, it is not clearly established, and, thus, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Daniel v. Taylor, 808 F.2d 1401, 1403 (11th Cir.1986). … For another example of a case that found the "clearly established” requirement satisfied and denied qualified immunity without citing a previous case with similar facts, see Powell v. M.C.

Hafley v. Lohman

90 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 1996

We note that "qualified immunity is an affirmative defense," and "it will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint." Id. … The defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity unless Hafley has alleged the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Ziemba v. Armstrong

433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Simkins v. Bruce

406 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 9, 2005

II Our analysis of qualified immunity involves two steps. … Plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the entry of summary judgment for defendants on the basis of qualified immunity was error.

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.”

Jenkins v. Talladega City Board of Education

95 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

the Anderson Court’s clarification of the appropriate level of generality at which a right must be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. … Justice was decided a few days after the events at issue here and, therefore, does not clearly establish the law in this case for qualified immunity purposes.