Case law

White v. Bibb County, Georgia

28 F. Supp. 2d 1374 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 7, 1998

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show (1) that Defendant God-bee violated their constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is well settled in the Eleventh Circuit that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Policky v. City of Seward, Neb.

433 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 25, 2006

Officer Shook Qualified immunity protects government officials from the costs of trial and the burdens of broad discovery unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise

Michael A. Bolden, Sr. v. Al Alston, Superintendent, Lincoln Correctional Facility, Nathaniel Hayes, Sergeant and Edward Kirkland, Sergeant

810 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 1987

Concluding that these rights had been clearly established by June 1982, the District Judge rejected appellants’ defense of official good faith immunity. … They contend that, even if they deprived Bolden of some due process rights, they did not contravene clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

William J. Klein v. Lawrence Ryan and Frank Lombardo

847 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 1988

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officials violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Because qualified immunity analysis requires us to apply the law that was clearly established on May 12, 1983, see Zook v. Brown, 748 F.2d 1161, 1164 (7th Cir.1984), Gamer does not control this case. See Brown v.

Robert Wilson v. David Spain, Mike Jones

209 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2000

from excessive force while detained by law enforcement officials and that the right has been clearly established. … Since the right to be free from excessive force in the context of an arrest has been clearly established for some time, other circuits have simply held that, in excessive-force eases, the qualified-immunity inquiry and the

Willie Bigford, Jr. v. Joe Max Taylor, Individually and as Sheriff of Galveston County, Texas

896 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1990

action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … For the legal rules to be considered “clearly established,” the “contours” of the right alleged to have been violated “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Jackson v. Johnson

797 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, D. Montana · Jul 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government actor from a suit for damages if the actor could have reasonably believed his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … With that determination it is necessary to turn to the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., whether the right violated by Deputy Johnson was clearly established in the law as of June 10, 2009. b.

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.

Eze v. Scott

11 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2014

Fourth Amendment— Qualified Immunity “The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) ‘a constitutional right was [not] violated’ or (2) ‘the right was [not] clearly established.’ ” … Sept. 30, 2013) (noting that qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages so long as their con duct does not violate a clearly established right (citing Taravella

Moore v. Hearle

639 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 2009

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is proper “only ‘if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is

Meyer v. NILES TP., ILL.

477 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1979

Dunne Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity. … To rebut the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right infringed was clearly established at the time of the action and the official “knew or reasonably should have known that

Asociación De Periodistas De Puerto Rico v. Mueller

529 F.3d 52 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 2008

Qualified Immunity In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants seek to avoid liability by invoking the protection of qualified immunity. … See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201 ("If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.").

Freeman, Dianna v. Johnson, Caleb

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 23, 2023

Generally, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows not only that the defendant violated his rights, but also that his rights were clearly established at the relevant time. … Because it is clearly established that probable cause cannot rest solely on a person’s presence at a suspected crime scene, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim for the purpose of defendants

Ewing v. City of Stockton

588 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2009

The Ewings do not establish that the unlawfulness of charging Heather with murder on the facts in question was clearly established. See Hope v. … The Supreme Court has clearly stated that with respect to advising police, prosecutors are entitled to qualified not absolute immunity. Burns, 500 U.S. at 492-95 , 111 S.Ct. 1934 .

Brown v. City of Golden Valley

534 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 14, 2008

Zarrett argues that qualified immunity shields him from liability. … “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

Jefferson v. Ashley

643 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 1986

Whether an official prevails on a defense of qualified immunity depends on the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. … Plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated any clearly established law or right.

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.

Richard Ceballos v. Gil Garcetti Frank Sundstedt Carol Najera County of Los Angeles

361 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

The Constitutional Right Was Clearly Established Even if Ceballos’s speech is constitutionally protected, the defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established … law is clearly established, and qualified immunity is therefore unavailable.

Roland Edger v. Krista McCabe

83 F.4th 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2023

Ca- sey, 75 F.4th 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other qualified immunity … Where we part ways with the district court is on the issue of arguable probable cause or the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Xiaoxing Xi v. Andrew Haugen

68 F.4th 824 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2023

Its determination that Xi failed to establish a “clearly established” violation for purposes of its qualified immunity analysis was therefore dispositive. Id. Xi now brings this timely appeal. II. … immunity because any constitutional rights he violated were not “clearly established.”