Case law

Lyons v. City of Xenia

90 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2004

Because we conclude as a matter of law that Officer Keith did not violate any clearly-established constitutional rights, we reverse the district court’s judgment denying her qualified immunity. … defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

Williams v. Bitner

285 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2003

Defendants also claim entitlement to qualified immunity on the ground that the violation was not so “clearly established” that prison officials should be expected to avoid it. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73-74 (8th Cir.1995) (finding that Muslim inmates had a clearly established right to refrain from handling pork for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis); Kenner v.

Kubany v. School Board of Pinellas County

839 F. Supp. 1544 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 20, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. … Unless the state of the law was so well established that a reasonable official should have been on notice that his or her chai-' lenged conduct was unlawful, that official is entitled to qualified immunity. -.Id.

Buck v. City of Albuquerque

549 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 9, 2008

entitlement to qualified immunity. … Third, he urges that, even if the officers did not have probable cause to arrest, he is protected by qualified immunity’s second prong, because the right of the Arrested Plaintiffs was not clearly established.

Dunn v. City of Boynton Beach

192 F. Supp. 3d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 14, 2016

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss. Skrtich v.

Navajo Housing Authority v. Johns

11 Am. Tribal Law 31 · Navajo Nation Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2012

, as Dana clearly intended. … However, the provision was, without doubt, part of the larger statutory scheme that established NHA as a public body.

Loynachan v. Smiley

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2024

Qualified immunity is a 25 question of law to be decided by the court. … Clearly Established Right 5 Still, qualified immunity applies if the violated 6 constitutional right was not clearly established.

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 .

Phoenix v. Reddish

175 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 19, 2001

Clearly Established Duty Phoenix argues in opposition to Carr’s claim of qualified immunity that he had a duty to intervene to prevent the police officers from violating her fourth amendment rights and that he violated that … Because Carr did not have a clearly established constitutional duty to intervene, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Michael Thomas Wilson v. Barry A. Kittoe, and Anthony S. Tokach

337 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

Under the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a “clearly established ... right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For the foregoing reasons, Wilson has alleged the violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed. AFFIRMED 1 .

Breuder v. Board of Trustees

238 F. Supp. 3d 1054 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 2017

Defeating qualified immunity requires (1) conduct violating the plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights that is (2) clearly established at the time of the violation such that a “reasonable official would understand … Here, the Individual Defendants claim that, even if there was a violation, it was not clearly established.

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2009

The reasoning behind this departure from the general rule is that qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to … at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Soto v. Coughlin

666 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1987

The defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for the conduct alleged in the complaint on the ground that the alleged conduct did not, at the time it occurred, violate clearly established law … Qualified immunity from liability is available to executive officials in their personal capacity only if the conduct at issue was not a clearly established violation of law at the time the conduct occurred, and only with

Latetia Nunley v. Blayne Newton

117 F.4th 1059 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … “[T]o determine whether [Newton] violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.

Simkunas v. Tardi

720 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1989

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Furthermore, in summary judgment situations where qualified immunity is at issue, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the allegedly “clearly established constitutional right.”

Harold Fish v. Tim Brown

838 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

government official; so, qualified immunity applies. … Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1165 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[A] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and

DePace v. Flaherty

183 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2002

Creighton, to say that the contours of a right must be clearly established “is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.” 31 … Flaherty still would be entitled to qualified immunity, despite the fact that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law, if it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate DePace

Olufemi Anthony Lukan v. North Forest Isd, Gloria S. Scott, L v. Brisco

183 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 1999

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1052 (5th Cir.1998). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See id.

Joseph v. Kimple

343 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · May 10, 2004

Joseph therefore can pierce Kimple’s qualified immunity defense by showing that the law was clearly established yet Kimple violated it. … As of 10/8/99 (the day Kimple swore the warrant out), it was clearly established law that a police officer would not be protected by qualified immunity if he applied for an arrest warrant where “a reasonably well-trained

Estate of Rudy Escob v. Brian Marti

702 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 13, 2012

When analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether the facts alleged demonstrate a constitu- tional violation, and whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Pearson v. … The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds to the defendant com- manders on the second prong, finding that Escobedo did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be free