Case law

Zuchel v. Spinharney

890 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 1989

Runner, 854 F.2d 374 (10th Cir.1988): Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects .government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Officer Spinharney concedes that Zu-chel’s right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right. Opening Brief of Appellant at 24.

Vasquez v. Hernandez

844 S.W.2d 802 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Nov 12, 1992

Therefore, if the movant in the present case established the qualified immunity defense, the non-movants were required to controvert this by summary judgment evidence. … Moreover, a former Miami police chief’s stated opinion that the shooting could have been “avoided” does not address or refute the established elements of qualified immunity.

Tucker v. City Of Richmond

388 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Assuming that "a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Thompson v. City of Indianapolis

208 F. Supp. 3d 968 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2016

Clearly Established Right The Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights must also be clearly established. … and Zotz were so clearly excessive to defeat the claim for qualified immunity.

Eric K. Brooks v. D Miller

78 F.4th 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2023

He argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of Brooks’s con- stitutional rights, and even assuming he did, any rights were not clearly established. … In sum, the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity in- quiry asks whether the law when the officer engaged in the USCA11 Case: 21-10590 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2023 Page: 22 of

NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORGAN. FOR WOMEN v. Cuomo

14 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 1998

Although violation of state rules or regulations may inform the court's analysis of a qualified immunity defense, the defense may only be defeated by the court's determination that the official violated "clearly established … The court must look to Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent in evaluating whether the law relevant to the constitutional issues raised here is "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes. See Elder v.

Schiffbauer v. Schmidt

95 F. Supp. 3d 846 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2015

Furthermore, because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit “rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial,” Mitchell … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before *853 the commencement of discovery.”

Lattany v. Four Unknown U.S. Marshals

845 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1994

I must next decide whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights violated by the defendants were not “clearly established” at the time of the incidents. … There is no meaningful dispute regarding qualified immunity. The right of both convicted prisoners and pre-trial detainees not to suffer deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is clearly established.

Madden v. Regional University System

73 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 24, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Mignon Marie Stone v. Richard Holzberger Richard A. Carpenter Richard Sizemore William Profitt Terry Payer

23 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 1994

[or qualified immunity] turns, such that it cannot be determined before trial whether the defendants did acts that violate clearly established rights.... 37 Poe v. … Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, "[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

313 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the denial of the motion may be appealed immediately under the collateral-order doctrine because "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather … For instance, we may "review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," but we may not "consider whether the district court

Hansen v. Bennett

948 F.2d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 27, 1991

If Bennett was attempting to suppress Hansen’s speech on the basis of its content, then he violated clearly established rights and is not entitled to qualified immunity. Collinson v. … If, on the other hand, he was enforcing an appropriately limited time, place, and manner restriction, then he did not violate clearly established rights, Jones v.

Harrington v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa

678 F.3d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

In 2007, the district court found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding their failure to disclose exculpatory evidence because any failure did not violate a right that was clearly established when the … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff[s], however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

Diaz-Morales v. Rubio-Paredes

170 F. Supp. 3d 276 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 21, 2016

Absolute and Qualified Immunity 1. … For these, only qualified immunity would be available.

Garner v. Steger

69 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 2014

Third, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. … The court next turns to the second prong of qualified immunity — whether the employment action here violated Garner’s clearly established rights.

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,

Jeffries v. Ayoub

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … If, as a matter of law, the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, then Ayoub is qualifiedly immune.

McCabe v. Caleel

739 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Application of the qualified immunity concept to McCabe’s situation is simple: It has not been “clearly established” even now, let alone when Board’s members acted back in the late 1970s, that the fact (if it is a fact) of

Bills v. Aseltine

52 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 26, 1995

The court noted that government officials are entitled to qualified immunity while performing discretionary functions so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights of which any reasonable official would … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Rasanen Ex Rel. Estate of Rasanen v. Brown

603 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

Here, Brown and Etherton seek summary judgment on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person