Case law

Noel Dean v. Darshan Phatak

911 F.3d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 2018

matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … Dean counters that the district court properly denied summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because Phatak created a false, misleading, and inaccurate autopsy report and violated Dean’s clearly-established constitutional

Nicholson v. Kent County Sheriff's Department

839 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 29, 1993

raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law. … However, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to this use of the taser as well because its use did not violate clearly established law.

Nagle v. Marron

663 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity 4 Although the statutory text of § 1983 provides for no immunities, it has been read “‘in 5 harmony with general principles of tort immunities’” to provide qualified immunity for most … Id.; see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 (“If the law did not put the officer on 7 notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified 8 immunity is appropriate.”). 9 The

Mathis v. COUNTY OF LYON

633 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

The right to notice and hearing prior to a public official’s administrative taking of property is clearly established. See, e.g., Fuentes v. … Glover was not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly settled. 2 AFFIRMED. . The granting of qualified immunity is reviewed only as a part of an appeal of a final judgment. .

Carrie Melear and Willie Stewart v. Wayne Spears, Etc., Ron Averitt, Etc.

862 F.2d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

Qualified Immunity. Avirett argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity regarding the claims of both Stewart and Melear. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.

Aaron v. Shelley

624 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 12, 2010

An interlocutory order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). … As we see it, the most clearly established laws in sight are the well-settled summary judgment and qualified immunity principles violated by this contention. The appeal does not pass muster under Johnson v.

Hill v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center

40 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 1994

Swain is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment law in August, 1987. … Importantly, for qualified immunity purposes, Swain cannot be held responsible for knowledge of Barfield , decided by this court in September, 1989, because it was not clearly established law in August, 1987.

Sterling Hotels, LLC v. Scott McKay

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2023

To overcome McKay’s assertion of qualified immunity at this stage, Sterling need only plausibly allege that McKay violated its clearly established constitutional rights. … McKay’s potential individual liability for a regulatory takings claim was not clearly established when he sealed the elevators. That means McKay is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen

761 F.3d 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 31, 2014

On appeal the estate argues that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because under clearly established law she committed sufficient affirmative acts to be liable for creating or increasing the danger to Brook … The estate has failed to show that Defendant’s behavior was a clearly established violation of Brook’s constitutional rights at the time it occurred. Defendant is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. III.

MOLINA-AVILES v. District of Columbia

824 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. … Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v.

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Sep 18, 2001

Second is qualified immunity, which protects an official from liability unless the official clearly violates an established statutory or constitutional right. The court in Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson , 999 F. … Under this rationale, a person, such as a prosecutor, could have absolute immunity for some of his conduct but only qualified immunity for other of his job-related activities.

Cotto v. City of Middletown

158 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 19, 2016

“The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3) even if the right was ‘clearly … Conducting a strip search despite a wholly unjustified lack of privacy violates clearly established law and defeats Davis’ claim of qualified immunity.

Jane Doe v. Francis D. Phillips, Ii, Gerald D. D'amelia, Jr.

81 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 22, 1996

Qualified Immunity In support of his defense of qualified immunity, D’Amelia argues, inter alia, that he did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights because he and his colleagues knew of no ease holding … Government officials may enjoy a privilege of qualified immunity from liability for damages arising out of their performance of discretionary official functions so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established

Seals v. City of Lancaster

553 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2008

Officer Laser is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity Officer Laser also contends he is entitled to summary judgment on a theory of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Saucier v. … With respect to the second factor in a qualified immunity analysis under Saucier, the court must determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Prisco v. United States, Department of Justice

851 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1988

established law. … In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v.

Candido v. Polymers, Inc.

166 Vt. 15 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Nov 8, 1996

Having found that Polymers qualifies as Candido’s employer under the statute, Polymers is immune from Candido’s attempted common-law negligence suit under the Act’s employer-immunity provision. 21 V.S.A. § 622. … Candido clearly accepted Polymers’s direction and control.

Frank Barrett v. Nancy I. Harrington, A/K/A Penny Harrington

130 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1997

To survive Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, Barrett must show that, under § 1983, Harrington’s conduct: (1) violates Barrett’s clearly established constitutional rights, (2) of which a reasonable person would … See discussion supra, concerning a judge’s absolute immunity to report possible illegal conduct. 29 .As the District Court noted, there are a number of ways a public official can establish a defense of qualified immunity.

Lehman v. Robinson

228 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Second, and only if a constitutional right was violated, we consider whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would believe the alleged conduct was unlawful.

Lucero v. Bush

737 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 1, 2010

Evaluating qualified immunity is an objective test: defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants’ qualified immunity defense must fail since reasonable police officers should or would have known the constitutional principles governing their conduct were clearly established and prohibited such action.

White v. Gerardot

509 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 5, 2007

It is well established, of course, that a denial of qualified immunity is only appealable “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 . … Detective Gerardot claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate Ford’s constitutional rights and, in any event, those rights were not clearly established at the time of