Case law

McCormick v. City of Lawrence

325 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 24, 2004

Even if the court were to proceed to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court would determine that it is not clearly established that Plaintiffs were- engaging in protected speech. … See Camfield, 248 F.3d at 1228 (citing Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 530 (holding that qualified immunity was proper when the plaintiff failed to cite any case law showing that the law was clearly established)).

Morris v. Jackson

353 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 10, 2005

However, qualified immunity does extend to this decision. … Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for injury arising from discretionary acts as long as the acts do not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Felker v. Christine

796 F. Supp. 135 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1992

In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v. … protection program without notice to the father as father’s right to a hearing was clearly established when the child was placed in the program).

Riebsame v. Prince

267 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 9, 2003

Deputy Prince is entitled to qualified immunity from Count III of Rieb-same’s complaint. Riebsame has not shown that Deputy Prince violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory law. … Riebsame has not proved that Sheriff Williams violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. No genuine issue of material fact remains as to Sheriff Williams’ qualified immunity. D.

Baptist v. O'LEARY

742 F. Supp. 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 1990

Qualified Immunity No such trial will be necessary here, though, because defendants must prevail on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. As Harlow v. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Roman Catholic Foundation v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

590 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 16, 2008

The reason plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary relief is because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 The reason that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is because their view that the Establishment Clause … Such liability, in turn, depends on whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 .

White v. Franklin

637 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 27, 1986

Qualified immunity is judged objectively by reference to clearly established law. Id. … Thus, if this court concludes that the individual defendants acting within their individual capacities violated such clearly established *616 constitutional or statutory rights, then qualified immunity does not bar this action

Negron v. City of New York

976 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 4, 2013

An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if … Whether the Constitutional Right Violated Was Clearly Established Even if their actions are found to have constituted unreasonable or excessive force, Marchesona and Pigott would still be entitled to qualified immunity if

Bryant v. Louisville Metro Hous. Auth.

568 S.W.3d 839 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

Louisville Metro, then, is clearly cloaked in sovereign immunity. … Juanita Mitchell is entitled to official qualified immunity Because we have held that LMHA is an immune entity, we must determine whether Mitchell is, therefore, extended qualified official immunity for her actions as a government

Rodriguez-Cruz v. Trujillo

443 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 11, 2006

Immunity Lastly, defendant raises the qualified immunity defense. … Thus, “qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced.” Burke v.

Shipp v. McMahon

234 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 2000

’s assertion of qualified immunity. … Thus, we find that Shipp articulates a clearly established right under the minimum requirements of Rule 12(b)(6).3 Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must show that the defendant

Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Peters

953 F. Supp. 1518 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 12, 1996

as the plaintiff contends, because the Court finds that Smith is clearly immune from the plaintiffs RICO claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5 Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary … The Hansen Court emphasized that the qualified immunity analysis is fact-specific: “When considering whether the law applicable to certain facts is clearly established, the facts of cases relied upon as precedent are important

Price-Cornelison v. Brooks

524 F.3d 1103 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 2008

The next qualified immunity question presented is whether the equal protection right implicated here was clearly established at the time Brooks refused to enforce Price-Cornelison’s permanent protective order. … Whether this Fourth Amendment right was clearly established.

Thad Delaughter v. Ronald Woodall

909 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2018

Clearly established law Having established that summary judgment on the first prong was incorrect, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, if the fact issues under prong one were resolved in Delaughter’s favor, Hatten’s conduct would violate clearly established law and he would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Bryant by Bryant v. Buchanan

883 F. Supp. 1222 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Police officers who use force in making an arrest are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Were the Constitutional Standards Clearly Established? Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176.

Barton v. Curtis

497 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2007

(2) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.” … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

William Mariani-Giron v. Heriberto Acevedo-Ruiz, Etc.

877 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

A court must look to the “objective legal reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies. Id. … Acevedo Ruiz argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Mariani Giron’s discharge in March 1985, the law was not clearly established that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement

Miller v. City of Nederland by and Through Wimer

977 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1997

To prevail on a qualified immunity defense, the defendant must show that he did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because Smith and Hamilton have raised the defense of qualified immunity, Miller must show, as a threshold matter, that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Day v. City of Indianapolis

380 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability for acts done in their official capacity, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights to which a reasonable … The law has clearly established this conduct as violative and therefore precludes the officers from qualified immunity.

Ginter v. Stallcup

641 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 11, 1986

Knox’s claims of qualified immunity. Ms. Ginter has not brought the Court’s attention to any clearly established law which movants’ conduct on June 3, 1983, violated. The claims against Mr. Blasingame and Mr. … Where the plaintiff can point to no clearly established law that the federal agents violated, they will be entitled to qualified immunity, as discussed above, regardless of their subjective state of mind.