Case law

Harold Werkheiser v. Pocono Township

780 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 2015

Because we conclude that the contours of the First Amendment right at issue were not clearly established, we hold that Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim.1 … Appellants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding Werkheiser’s rights was not clearly established. The District Court rejected this argument as well.

Cathy Burns v. Rick Reed

44 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1995

Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil suit based on their discretionary functions except where such conduct violated “clearly established” law. Sherman v. … The Supreme Court’s test for qualified immunity has been summarized by this Court as follows; In determining whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established,” the constitutional right must be identified

Mccloud v. Testa

97 F.3d 1536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1997

Finally, as an additional guidepost we note that, as a practical matter, invocation of the Rice canon and the general availability of qualified immunity will move in tandem, because if it is already clearly established that … immunity context, where the key inquiry is whether a principle of law is clearly established, may be perceived as problematic.

James Byron Green v. Margaret Baron, Joan Wright, Sherri Shea, Dr. R.T. Lara, and Gary Kirchhof

925 F.2d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 6, 1991

To determine if the employees are entitled to qualified immunity, we must first decide whether Green has invoked a constitutional right that was clearly established when the conduct in question occurred. See Harlow v. … Thus, when Green entered Oakdale, it was clearly established he could not be punished.

People v. Kolanek; People v. King

491 Mich. 382 · Michigan Supreme Court · May 31, 2012

• Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana. … Registered patients who do not qualify for immunity under § 4, as well as unregistered persons, are entitled to assert in a criminal prosecution the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8 of the MMMA,

Palmieri v. Kammerer

690 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person … Thus, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is denied on this basis. ii Protective Sweep/Grab Area There is no doubt that the law regarding protective sweeps was “clearly established” under Maryland v.

Tyson v. Willauer

289 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 23, 2003

However, qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, in support of their qualified immunity defense, Defendants assert that no clearly established right was violated and that Defendants’ entry into Plaintiffs’ residence to execute a valid arrest warrant was lawful and

Pasqualone v. Gately

422 Mass. 398 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 5, 1996

As the Supreme Court stated in *403 Anderson, supra at 639 , “[pjlaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by … Although we have no doubt that Gately violated Pasqualone’s clearly established constitutional rights, we must acknowledge that this case exposes a gap in our law.

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

Inspector Winston’s Qualified Immunity We begin our evaluation of the qualified immunity issue by setting forth Mr. Maltb/s allegations against Inspector Winston. In his complaint, Mr. … City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir.1994) ("The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.”); Apostol v.

O'Ferrell v. United States

998 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 24, 1998

J. pp. 4-S (entire discussion of qualified immun.) That proposition is that it has been clearly established since the Supreme Court decided Malley v. … The Eleventh Circuit has noted, since the O’Ferrells’ ease began, that Franks clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, that an officer may not make an “affirmative misstatement” in ‘applying for a warrant.

Phat's Bar & Grill v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government

918 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2013

Thus, Kentucky law adopts both an objective and a subjective approach to qualified immunity, whereas the federal law only provides immunity where the official objectively violated a person’s clearly established rights. … Because Officer Smith cannot prove that he did not violate Williams, Jr.’s clearly-established rights, Officer Smith’s claim to qualified official immunity on the Kentucky malicious prosecution claim must be denied.

Lorenzo Fernandez v. Gregorio Perez

937 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1991

Fernandez contends the law at the time of the arrest was clearly-established that probable cause to arrest him was lacking. … Thus, Officer Perez acted reasonably in arresting and detaining him and enjoys qualified immunity for the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff.

Charlene Bush, Wife John Bush, Husband v. David Rauch D. Brad Campbell, Individually and Officially

38 F.3d 842 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity and are protected from civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In the instant case, Campbell is at the least entitled to qualified immunity. The Bushes have not affirmatively articulated, nor does the record indicate, any clearly established right allegedly violated by Campbell.

Stadt v. University of Rochester

921 F. Supp. 1023 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 15, 1996

The Defendant is not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … Ordinarily, government officials sued in their individual capacities are' entitled to qualified immunity from suit for damages so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights

David Powell v. Jerry L. Gallentine Robert C. Martin Maria Elvira Rodriguez Richard C. Kauzlaric, Western New Mexico University Board of Regents

992 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1993

We have previously set out the procedure for analyzing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the defendant must raise the defense of qualified immunity. … official violated the clearly established law.

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.

Nicole Guerriero v. City of Delray Beach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2024

To establish a prima facie case, she must show that (1) “she belong[ed] to a pro- tected class,” (2) “she was subjected to an adverse employment ac- tion,” (3) “she was qualified to perform the job … GTE Fla., Inc., 226 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that evidence showing that plaintiff was “clearly more qualified” in one area relevant for the job did not establish that employer’s decision

Williams v. County of Alameda

26 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2014

An officer will receive qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful, in 'light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Id. … Even an officer who reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right will receive qualified immunity. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205-206, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

William Manery v. Jason Lee

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ciolino v. Eastman

128 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 3, 2015

Second Prong: Clearly Established Right The disputes of fact discussed above also preclude the Court from finding that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not “clearly established,” such that Defendants would … be entitled to qualified immunity on the second prong of the test.