Case law

William O. Fuller v. Joe Carollo

977 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

Carollo’s motion sought dismissal of the complaint based, in part, on qualified immunity. … The magistrate judge concluded that Carollo was not entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Jan 31, 2000

E.D. 1998), proves helpful, as the court stated: Two kinds of immunity exists for government officials absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

John Flowers v. City of Diboll Texas, Steve Baker and Kent Havard

Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · May 22, 2013

Governmental employees are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages ―insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity shields a police officer if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. See Hunter v.

Rita Johnson v. City of Saginaw

980 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2020

Analysis Cabello and Stemple appeal the denial of qualified immunity.3 “This court reviews a district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified-immunity grounds de novo.” Quigley, 707 F.3d at 679. … “An assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome if the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.” United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464, 484-85 (6th Cir. 2014).

Caffey v. Johnson

883 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

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

McKeon v. Daley

101 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 24, 2000

Qualified immunity is available to protect conduct violating a clearly established constitutional right where the governmental official had an objectively reasonable and good faith belief that the action taken was lawful. … of qualified immunity.

Monks v. Marlinga

732 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 14, 1990

Thus, neither is dispositive of the current qualified immunity issue. … in fact is not clearly established today.

Hudson v. Hudson

475 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … IV 9 * Having determined that qualified immunity is available to these officers, we next consider whether they are entitled to it. We engage in the well-established two-step inquiry specified in Saucier v.

Uinta County v. Pennington

286 P.3d 138 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2012

/d. [114] In order to establish a claim of qualified immunity, the claimant must prove; 1) the officer was acting within the seope of his or her duties; 2) the officer was acting in good faith; 3) the officer's acts were … record when a public official asserts qualified immunity.

Radloff v. City of Oelwein

284 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · May 19, 2003

Conclusions of Law Qualified Immunity A government official who performs discretionary functions is protected from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity as long as the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established … The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs claim of excessive force. The right against unreasonable seizure of one’s person is clearly established law.

Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 2d 683 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2008

’s constitutional rights were clearly established. … Hanas’s right under the Establishment Clause to be free from state coercion was clearly established since 2001. See Inouye v.

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.

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State University

899 F. Supp. 1561 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 22, 1995

In examining the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment, the Court in this case must: first inquire whether [Plaintiff] has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … has not demonstrated that such a constitutional right was “clearly established” for the purpose of refuting Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. 20 When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the Plaintiff

Grune v. Rodriguez

176 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 26, 1999

Defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any "clearly established" rights of plaintiff. … DISCUSSION 14 Appellants argue on this appeal that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity because their actions did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

Kevin Richardson v. Donald Selsky, Clement Capuano, William Fenton, Bernard Lonczak

5 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 22, 1993

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. See Harlow v. … In Rejecting the officer’s qualified immunity defense, we concluded that an “inmate’s right not to be adjudicated guilty without some evidence to support that finding was clearly established by 1988, when the hearing occurred

González v. Moreno

202 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 16, 2016

Qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectionably reasonable as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were “clearly established … The Court need not address whether any constitutional violation alleged here was . clearly established since Plaintiffs’ complaint fails at the first step of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Marshall v. Montaplast of N. Am., Inc.

575 S.W.3d 650 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2019

This Court held that the rule prohibiting noncompete agreements qualified as such. Id. … Immunity is a shield. It frees a party from the burden of litigation. It does not create a sword or a right to engage in an act.