Case law

Justin Schimandle v. DeKalb County Sheriff's Office

114 F.4th 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2024

A Qualified immunity requires the court to determine: (1) whether the record evidences the violation of a federal statu- tory or constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right violated was clearly established at … “There is no question that [Schimandle’s] constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established at the time of the incident.”

DePree v. Saunders

588 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 13, 2009

First, if DePree’s speech was constitutionally protected, Saunders was entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Foley v. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003).

Dorian Johnson v. City of Ferguson

864 F.3d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

a clearly established constitutional violation. … Whether Officer Wilson and Chief Jackson are entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether it was clearly established that Officer Wilson violated Johnson’s Fourth Amendment rights.

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

863 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … Second, the district court held that Santos and Cavazos were entitled to qualified immunity because how existing law applied to the facts was not clearly established.

Collins v. City of N.Y.

295 F. Supp. 3d 350 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2018

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly *363 established' at the time of the violation." Tolan v. … immunity was not clearly established."

Smith v. Township of Prairieville

194 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 11, 2016

Accordingly, no constitutional violation occurred, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for this claim. 2. The right was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right Detective Gustafson also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity “because it was not clearly established in this particular context that opéning a utensil drawer during a consensual search

Riggs v. City of Pearland

177 F.R.D. 395 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 17, 1997

The Fifth Circuit has also developed a two-step process for the examination of a claim of qualified immunity. The first inquiry is whether Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Again, the defense of qualified immunity is a bar to denial of medical care claims unless Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law existing at that time

Patrick Atwater, Jr. v. Kelly H. Tucker

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 24, 2017

“The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law; … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable

Boyer v. City of Mansfield

3 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 1998

Whether or not qualified immunity exists in a given case is a legal question for the court, unless there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant committed acts that would violate a clearly established … unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”

Susan Esquillan, Defendant/third-Party v. The Health Care Insurance Company, Third-Party

222 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 2000

The district court then ruled that *120 even if the improper investigation did violate her constitutional rights, the defendants would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established … Thus, all of the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for those acts. Furthermore, Ms.

Linscott

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 23, 2025

If the court can conclude either that no constitutional violation occurred or that the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity is warranted. … In response to Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, Plaintiff simply argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity without citing any case that he claims shows Defendants violated clearly established

Louisiana Farms v. LA. Dept. of Wildlife

685 So. 2d 1086 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Applying the foregoing principles to our qualified immunity analysis, the first question becomes whether the DWF officers' conduct in constructively seizing the Bartmess' entire farming operation violated "clearly established

Tejada Batista v. Fuentes Agostini

247 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 2003

ANALYSIS Defendants generally argue that as a matter of law the case should be dismissed because they are shielded from liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · May 8, 2024

any clearly established law. . . . … clearly established right of the Plaintiffs to which General Helper is alleged to have violated.”

Cohn v. New Paltz Central School District

363 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 30, 2005

Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … Defendant Derry is not entitled to qualified immunity for this claim. Case law has clearly established the “class of one” selective enforcement claim alleged in this action. Vill. of Willowbrook v.

Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis

956 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 20, 2020

Having concluded that the facts presented do not make out a violation of Gilbert’s constitutional rights, we need not evaluate the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Greenman v. … Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 887 & n.10 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming the district court’s grant of qualified immunity based on the constitutional violation prong even though the district court only reached the clearly established

Jones v. Clinton

858 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 21, 1994

In such cases, courts are required to determine whether the alleged actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To decide whether an official is protected by qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the

Zisk v. City of Roseville

56 Cal. App. 3d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

. §§ 1983 and/or 1985) because the city councilmen are not immune from liability thereunder and because the pleadings establish that the councilmen clearly violated established constitutional rights of plaintiffs. … The court found them immune from liability, stating: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and

King v. Williams

5 Ohio St. 3d 137 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1983

The issue presented in this case is whether the driver of an emergency medical services vehicle operated by the city of Akron, and the city itself, qualify for immunity from liability under R.C. 701.02. … Appellee Williams was clearly employed by the city of Akron as a member of the fire department. In addition, the evidence is uncontradicted that the ambulance was on an emergency run at the time of the accident.

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Qualified immunity "shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity defense fails to bar the First Amendment claim.