Case law

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

McGory v. Metcalf

665 So. 2d 254 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 3, 1995

The next inquiry is whether the law allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of *259 the incident. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Harlow 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

Byrd v. Cornelius

52 F.4th 265 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2022

III Cornelius and Sweetin argue that we should reverse the district court and grant them qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Next, we address, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Byrd, whether the officers violated clearly established law when they allegedly used excessive force to arrest a

Harvey v. Republic Services of Ohio II, 2007 Ca 00278 (3-23-2009)

2009 Ohio 1343 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. {¶ 21} "VI. … immunity if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Sammy Ussery v. Mansfield

786 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 19, 2015

As the parties agree, the law clearly established at the time of the extraction governs the entitlement to qualified immunity here. Further, they agree that Norman v. … summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity would be entirely unreviewable if the defendant officers conceded that Ussery’s version of the facts would establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

J.L. v. Barnes

33 A.3d 902 · Superior Court of Delaware · Jun 17, 2011

and qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity When State actors or employees are sued in their individual capacities, they are exempt from liability (known as “qualified immunity”) pursuant to the STCA when: (1) the alleged act or failure to act arises

Trammell v. Thomason

559 F. Supp. 2d 1281 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 3, 2008

“In this Circuit, the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions from the U.S. … Thus, the Court turns to the next sequential step in a qualified immunity analysis, which is to determine whether the right was “clearly established.” Was the right clearly established?

Christina Romero v. Amanda Brown

937 F.3d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2019

The court held that a violation of the right to family integrity was not clearly established in the context of a social worker investigation, entitling both Brown and Mouton to qualified immunity. … Those allegations do not establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

Bevill v. Wheeler

103 F.4th 363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields public officials sued in their individual capacities ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As noted above, once an official asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

United States v. Albert Tantalo

680 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1982

Defense counsel urged that since the appellant had provided immunized testimony before the grand jury, the Government was called upon to present evidence to the court to establish not only an independent basis for the indictment … The district court’s ruling which upheld the indictments, without calling upon the government to establish that the evidence it proposed to present at the trial was untainted by the appellant’s immunized testimony, was in

East Coast Novelty Co., Inc. v. City of New York

809 F. Supp. 285 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 1992

clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … But, [e]ven where the law is “clearly established” and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is “clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him

Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents

159 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 1998

II, doc. 7 at 679 (Dean Jerry entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights); see also id. vol. … Pages and pages of facts are no substitute for citations to clearly established law. Nor can they meet Professor Tonkovich’s burden on qualified immunity.

McCaslin v. Wilkins

17 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 1998

A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a Defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Hill v. Miller

878 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1995

As the Seventh Circuit recently reaffirmed, “[p]olice officers who use force are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly, Miller maintains that his conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Demster v. City of Lenexa, Kan.

359 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 16, 2005

The court dismissed this claim after finding that defendants were shielded by qualified immunity. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the court employs a two-part test.

Skatemore, Inc. v. Gretchen Whitmer

40 F.4th 727 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Assuming Plaintiffs alleged an unconstitutional taking, they have failed to show that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established.5 The Supreme Court has cautioned courts “not to define clearly established

Freeman v. Blair

793 F.2d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 4, 1986

The decisions to inspect without a warrant clearly were functions for which Blair and Massa are not entitled to absolute immunity nor, as we conclude below, were the decisions reasonable under clearly established law. … Our task then will be to determine whether the law in the areas implicated in those claims was clearly established at the time of the actions here at issue and thus whether the state officials’ qualified immunity defenses

Dean v. Blumenthal

577 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

We hold that all requested relief, other than damages, is moot and that appellee is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign … We also hold that appellee Richard Blumenthal is entitled to qualified immunity from Dean’s claim for damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign contributions during

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

979 F.3d 498 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2020

But because her conduct did not violate any clearly established law, qualified immunity protects her. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. … Qualified Immunity. That leaves Helper’s qualified immunity defense against Stockdale and Dunning’s § 1983 claim.