Case law

Peete v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County

486 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2007

clearly established." … The Court held that Champion's arrest and restraint by police constituted a clearly established unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and denied the police officers' argument that they were entitled to qualified

Castagna v. Jean

955 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 10, 2020

Further, they argued that were entitled to qualified immunity on the same grounds and because the law on community caretaking in 2013 did not clearly establish that their entry violated either brother's constitutional … The Officers Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because in 2013 the Law Was Not Clearly Established that Entering the Home Was Unconstitutional Under the Community Caretaking Exception The officers are entitled

Kevin Lipman v. Armond Budish

974 F.3d 726 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2020

Even had Defendants adequately argued the qualified immunity point, the right that they infringed upon was clearly established at the time of their actions in this case. … And in Nelson, this Court directly addressed qualified immunity with respect to state-created danger, rejecting the officer’s claim to qualified immunity because Kallstrom clearly established that the state may not affirmatively

Scarpa v. Ponte

638 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 1986

Third, Scarpa claims that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were clearly established at the time he was wrongly punished. 2 A. … In King, the First Circuit Court of Appeals took into account the defendant’s violation of clearly established prison regulations in denying his qualified immunity defense.

Latherian Harris v. City of Saginaw, Mich.

62 F.4th 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 20, 2023

We evaluate qualified immunity in two, non-sequential steps: whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. … And because there is reason to believe that this arrest violated Harris’s clearly established constitutional right, none of the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

T.S.H. v. Green

996 F.3d 915 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 11, 2021

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. The district court concluded, however, that the students adequately alleged violations of clearly established constitutional and statutory rights. … The officers thus did not violate the students’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, so they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B.

White v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama

31 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 15, 1999

Harbert has set forth a general principle of law, but we have held time and again that clearly established general principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Kulwicki v. Dawson

969 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 2, 1992

As to the issue of media communication, however, we find that Loutzenhiser is entitled to qualified immunity because Kulwicki fails to allege a violation of clearly established federal law. … issue as to defendant’s commission of acts in violation of plaintiffs clearly established rights.

Greiner v. City of Champlin

27 F.3d 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 5, 1994

The district court held the federal claims were barred by qualified immunity and the state claims by official immunity. … An official loses immunity if, first, the law he violated was clearly established at the time of the violation, and second, the applicability of the law to his particular action was evident. Id.

Malsh v. Austin

901 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1995

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to … For the plaintiff to overcome the qualified immunity defense, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right.

Thompson v. Williamson County, Tenn.

965 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 17, 1997

the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights. … In other words, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper.

Simmons v. Fabian

743 N.W.2d 281 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 31, 2007

Qualified immunity, the most common variety, protects officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … By focusing on “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” the test for qualified immunity is intended both to avoid excessively disrupting government functioning

Richard Ortega v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

737 F.3d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 2013

In a qualified-immunity case, a court may reject the constitutional claim on either of two grounds — either because no such constitutional right existed or because the constitutional right was not clearly established at the … clearly established at the time.

Hernandez v. Conde

442 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 24, 2006

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of … On the other hand, if a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id.

Eastwood v. Department Of Corrections Of The State Of Oklahoma

846 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 12, 1988

Lovelace in his individual capacity survives the qualified immunity defense because plaintiff has established that Mr. Lovelace knew or should have known about plaintiff's clearly established right of privacy. … To determine the applicability of a qualified immunity defense, an appellate court must examine if the official conduct at issue "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Ruffin v. Nicely

183 F. App'x 505 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2006

The burden of proving that the right was clearly established “rests squarely on the plaintiff,” Cope v. … On appeal, Ruffin has not adequately challenged the district court’s holding that any rights violated were not clearly established. Ruffin only “submits that this was a clearly established Constitutional right.”

Goldwire v. City of Philadelphia

130 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2015

An officer asserting an' entitlement to qualified immunity must claim that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. Behrens v. … violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

Katherine Gardenhire and Walter Gardenhire v. Donald Schubert, in His Individual and Official Capacity as Chief of Police

205 F.3d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2000

The affirmative defense of qualified, or good faith, immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established … Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated and second, establish that a reasonable officer in the

Romero v. City of Clanton

220 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2002

When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a constitutional right is asserted, then determine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v. … is clearly established.

Mollan v. Lindner

544 Pa. 487 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1996

This Court made clear in Montgomery that, absent statutory classification, the parameters establishing “high public official” status would be delineated by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing a … Exercising significant policy-making functions as the most important public official in the Borough of Yeadon, Appellee clearly qualifies as a “high public official” under the criteria established in Montgomery .