Case law

Mesa v. Prejean

543 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 2008

Because of that uncertainty, we must take the next sequential step in qualified immunity analysis and ask whether “a reasonably competent officer would not have known his actions violated then-existing clearly established … Tarazona “must show that the legality of her conduct was clearly established.” Id.

Robin Akins v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Defendants

840 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1988

On the matter of immunity, the magistrate determined that the case law at that time did not clearly establish the substantive due process right to be free from arbitrary and capricious action on the part of university officials … established.

Dustin Williamson v. Bryan Stirling

912 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 21, 2018

In making its qualified immunity rulings, the district court relied solely on the clearly established prong, deciding that Williamson’s due process rights were not clearly established, and thus awarded qualified immunity … If the law regarding the level of process owed to pretrial detainees was not clearly established as to either situation, Director Stirling and Sheriff Carroll would yet be entitled to qualified immunity on Williamson’s

Mattos v. Agarano

590 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2010

clearly established right. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields the officers “from liability for civil damages [unless their conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Robert W. Fowler v. Armond Cross, Commissioner of Florida Parole Board

635 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 1981

Navarette, 434 U.S. at 562 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 , the Supreme Court said: 9 [T]he [qualified] immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established … The district court’s finding of qualified immunity is clearly erroneous and is reversed. III.

Houston v. Tucker

137 F. Supp. 2d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 1, 2000

the defendant violated clearly established law. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that: (1) the defendant violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Jones v. Wildgen

349 F. Supp. 2d 1358 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 14, 2004

To defeat qualified immunity, plaintiff must allege a clearly established right and allege that defendant violated it. The allegations, however, need not contain specific dates and times of each alleged infraction. … For purposes of qualified immunity, the next question is whether plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.

Morales v. Chadbourne

996 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 12, 2014

established right in this regard, qualified immunity attaches to these defendants on the procedural due process claim. … These constitutional principles are axioms that are not questionable or in doubt; they are and have been “clearly established,” and thus the Federal Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Broderick

225 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 29, 2000

If so, we may proceed to determine whether Detective Broderick is entitled to qualified immunity or whether, because he ran afoul of clearly established constitutional rights, he is to be held personally accountable for his … Detective Broderick argues that he is protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in August 1998 that patients in drug treatment facilities had a legitimate expectation of privacy in their files

Victor R. Rodriguez-Burgos v. Electric Energy Authority

853 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

We address the qualified immunity question first. II. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The defendants were thus entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s damages claims since the plaintiff held the type of upper-level management or administrative post that was not clearly protected against patronage

Linbrugger v. Abercia

363 F.3d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

Qualified immunity protects public officers from suit if them conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … First, we must determine whether the facts, either as the plaintiff alleges or as proved without dispute, establish that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right. Price v.

Anderson v. City of Hopkins

805 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 28, 2011

Clearly Established Right The second step in determining if qualified immunity applies is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Thus, qualified immunity does not apply as to Kreiling. IV.

Aupperlee v. Coughlin

97 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 31, 2000

Layne, 526 U.S. 603 , 119 S.Ct. 1692, 1697 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (quotation omitted). “ ‘Clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Melton v. City of Oklahoma City

879 F.2d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 21, 1989

We hold that in so doing, Chief Gramling violated clearly established law and cannot claim the protection of qualified immunity on retrial. 3. … established law and qualified immunity may not be available to them.

Forsyth v. Kleindienst

729 F.2d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 1984

The district court reasoned that because Mitchell failed to establish an objective basis for believing his action to be lawful at the time he authorized the wiretaps in question, the clearly established law made his warrantless … Appealability of Summary Denial of Qualified Immunity Defendant Mitchell appeals also the district court’s summary denial of his qualified immunity claim.

Miesen v. State Department of Transportation

226 Wis. 2d 298 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 6, 1999

Because the DOT is a State agency, see §§ 15.01(5) and 15.46, Stats., Miesen's complaint cannot stand unless the legislature has expressly and clearly consented for the DOT to be sued, thus waiving its sovereign immunity. … According to the DOT, the legislature must clearly and expressly waive the State's sovereign immunity with respect to each type of claim that might be brought under § 109.03(5). We disagree.

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. … “clearly established” law.

Michael Alexander v. Mark McKinney

692 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fleming v. … Claims of qualified immunity involve two questions: (1) whether the official’s con- duct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time. Surita v.

David Evans v. Patrick Baker

703 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right. See Harlow v. … To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v.

Bombace v. City of Newark

125 N.J. 361 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 7, 1991

other antecedent or surrounding conduct might constitute acts or action that would otherwise be subject to the qualified immunity. … In construing the Act, this Court has respected that legislative policy to establish immunity as the general rule. E.g., Rochinsky v. State, 110 N.J. 399, 407-08 , 541 A. 2d 1029 (1988).