Case law

Teresa Graham v. Shannon Barnette

970 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

The officers respond that probable cause is not the correct standard and that, even if it was, the standard was not clearly established, meaning they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.

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.

Fils v. City of Aventura

647 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2011

The court then revised its rulings on the Defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses. … But, where the officer’s conduct is so outrageous that it clearly goes “so far beyond” these borders, qualified immunity will not protect him *1292 even in the absence of case law. Reese v.

Kaminski v. Anderson

792 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right....

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.

Click v. Copeland

970 F.2d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1992

In the first part of Matherne, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity because the law was not clearly established in July 1983 that a sheriff could not retaliate … The crucial difference was the analytical framework established by McBee. Id. at 759, 760. The law of McBee was clearly established in January 1988.

Duran v. City of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: “[A] district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ … The legal issues involved in that appeal — whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections — are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity.

Britt v. Garcia

457 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Qualified Immunity Doctrine “The doctrine of qualified immunity offers protection for ‘government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … subjected to such conduct was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or that the appellants’ actions were objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

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.

Carmack v. Trombley

363 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2005

Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that “government officials performing discretionary functions” are entitled to a qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … to qualified immunity.

Moon v. Rockdale County

188 F. Supp. 3d 1369 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 27, 2016

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … Thus, there remain material questions of fact regarding whether Smith violated Moon’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Jordan v. Berman

792 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1992

whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time of the alleged violation were sufficiently clear in light of … The court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that by 1982, and thus ipso facto by 1989, it was clearly established, particularly in view of North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v.

Larenzo Irvin v. Tyler Richardson

20 F.4th 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage liability for a discretionary act that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional -4- rights … : whether the rights at issue were clearly established.

Walsh v. Ward

757 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 1, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument in support of their motion to dismiss is that, to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities, they are immune from liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified … In short, the “qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual

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.

Anderson v. Recore

317 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 2003

The judge's qualified immunity determination followed from his conclusion that Sandin v. … Dist., 239 F.3d 246 , 250 (2d Cir.2001). 9 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity "if either (a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant

Adrow v. Johnson

623 F. Supp. 1085 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 12, 1985

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that even if this search violated the fourth amendment, they are protected by the qualified immunity accorded to certain government officials and are therefore not liable for damages … (“One of the cases [establishing the applicable standard] was a case from this circuit. As the law was, therefore, established, the defendants were not entitled to immunity.” Id. (emphasis added)).

Anna Mustafa v. City of Chicago

442 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 23, 2006

The defendants were protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate dearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would know

Cook v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CTY. OF WYANDOTTE

966 F. Supp. 1049 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 29, 1997

The Court also finds that Officer Drake is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity would shield Officer Drake from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that plaintiffs arrest was lawful in light of clearly established. law and information which Officer Drake possessed

Adkins v. Rodriguez

59 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1995

Adkins could not set forth a claim showing a clearly established right to be free of sexual harassment in a prison setting. Upon this basis, the court granted defendant qualified immunity from suit. In this appeal, Ms. … Having raised the defense of qualified immunity, defendant then places the onus on the plaintiff to establish defendant has violated a clearly established law. Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir.1993).