Case law

Evans v. Morgan

304 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 25, 2003

Defendant contends both that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for a violation of due process and that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established … Qualified Immunity Defendant contends that plaintiffs claim should be dismissed because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry.

Munafo v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

285 F.3d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 26, 2002

The employee’s right to be free from such retaliation has been clearly established since at least 1968. … Accordingly, this Court, in order to review the individual defendants’ contention that the district court’s ruling on this branch of their qualified immunity motions mistakenly identified clearly established law, must “undertake

Todd v. Montoya

877 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 24, 2012

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified-immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed-Immunity Analysis.

Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco

495 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 17, 2007

clearly established. … Also, because no reasonable officer could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that the search as described by Edgerly was constitutional, the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the search.

Schulkers v. Kammer

367 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 8, 2019

. ----, 137 S.Ct. 548 , 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017), the Court stated: Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … However, in Barber , the court addressed only the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis and held that a child's Fourth Amendment right to avoid warrantless, in-school interviews conducted by social

Pratt v. Hogan

631 F. Supp. 2d 192 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 6, 2009

Qualified immunity bars a claim for monetary damages against government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to allege the violation of a constitutional right, defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity if plaintiffs constitutional rights were not clearly established

Bessman v. Powell

991 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 20, 1998

established law for purposes of qualified immunity inquiries. … The Court notes that qualified immunity also acts to bar Plaintiffs Due Process claims because, as alleged, Plaintiffs Due Process claims are not clearly established.

Nathaniel Brent v. Wayne Cty. Dep't of Human Servs.

901 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2018

Thus, if Wenk violated plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights when executing the removal order, she would not be entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ claims. See id. at 695. … We held that the social workers had not violated clearly established law “by exceeding the limited consent to search that [Brent] had given them,” and we thereby held that the social workers were entitled to qualified immunity

Jessica Kampschroer v. Ramsey County

840 F.3d 961 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

The City of Minneapolis appeals the denial of qualified immunity in the Karasov action, and numerous Minnesota counties appeal the denial of qualified immunity in the Kampschroers action. … 2) even if there is liability for such action, it was not clearly established at the time the information was accessed in these cases.

Young v. Selk

508 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Shockency v. … The defendants in their brief do not focus on this aspect of qualified immunity. First of all, in any case, it was no doubt clearly established long before 2004, when Mr.

Bird v. Lampert

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 2020

(2) that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Clearly Established Law But even if we assume that a constitutional violation occurred, defendants Lampert, Pacheco, and Weik would still be entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established

Donovan George Davis v. Philip B. Williams

451 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2006

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … There is no question that the second step – clearly established – is satisfied, as it is clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Thornton v.

Susan Lynn Roberts v. Charles Timothy Kling

144 F.3d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 20, 1998

“First, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; second, the plaintiff must show the right the defendant’s conduct violated was clearly established such that a reasonable … Roberts attempts to cast this determination as factual and also seeks to demonstrate factual disputes on point; however, we agree with the district court that Roberts has not demonstrated that Kling violated clearly established

Williams v. City of Albany

936 F.2d 1256 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 30, 1991

Lack of good faith may be proved by showing that the public official’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Hudgins v. … Plaintiff has failed to make a showing, sufficient to overcome the claim of qualified immunity, that defendants’ actions were of the type that a reasonable police investigator would know violated the suspect’s clearly established

Beckinger v. TOWNSHIP OF ELIZABETH

697 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2010

A broad and generalized declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. … The relevant conduct in Reilly occurred prior to Garcetti at a time when the right was clearly established.

Toliver v. New York City Department of Corrections

202 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 2016

Mar. 27, 2006) (finding defendant who “clearly failed to request special interrogatories even after he had been invited to do so” by the Court waived qualified immunity defense). … It is true that “qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their duties if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Whisman v. Rinehart

119 F.3d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

Qualified Immunity 17 Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Id. 21 We take a broad view of what constitutes "clearly established" under the qualified immunity analysis. Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir.1994).

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.

James P. Martin v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, Wray Anderson, Mitchell Salloum, Edward Reid, and Myrtis Franke

86 F.3d 1391 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 1996

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the order denying qualified immunity was collateral order immediately appealable under Cohen . … A second major conception animating all of the immunity doctrines is that “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served

Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell

981 F.2d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 15, 1992

Qualified Immunity Claim “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable