Case law

Hydrick v. Hunter

449 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2006

Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw "clearly established" law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context … established" law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context, and second, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is

Warren v. Coffee County Commission

942 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Qualified immunity is appropriate on the excessive force claim. B.

Gubitosi v. Kapica

154 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 19, 1998

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)), and proceed to consider whether the qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 4 Here the gravamen of Kapica's qualified immunity … As a result, his qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 13 (2) Accordingly, we vacate so much of the district court's order of May 9, 1997 as denied Kapica's motion for summary judgment based on qualified

Marilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, Roland Neil Meyers, and City of Wichita, Scott Redpath, Special Agent, Marilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, City of Wichita, Roland Neil Meyers, and Scott Redpath, Special Agent

76 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 1996

If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant's conduct that violated clearly established law. Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535 . … Compare Elder, 114 S.Ct. at 1021 ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.") with Graham, 490 U.S. at

Johnson Ex Rel. Cano v. Holmes

377 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2004

Once a defendant raises the- qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must “come forward with facts or allegations sufficient to show both that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that [the] law was clearly … If the plaintiff meets this two-part burden, the defendant “assumes the normal summary judgment burden of establishing that no material facts that would defeat his claim for qualified immunity remain in dispute.”

Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hospital

170 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 22, 2001

When qualified immunity is raised in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing that the defendant violated clearly established law. … right was clearly established.”

Bostic v. Rodriguez

667 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2009

Under Pearson , the court next proceeds to the second step in the qualified-immunity framework: was this right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation? … Therefore, the right was not clearly established, and Rodriguez is entitled to qualified immunity.

Marcavage v. National Park Service

666 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

The District Court then found that Saperstein and Crane were entitled to qualified immunity from both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment claims because Marcavage’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established … As noted above, to strip Saperstein and Crane of qualified immunity requires the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Crowley v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Village of Southampton

872 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1995

The Complaint should be Dismissed Against the Individual Defendants on the Basis of Qualified Immunity. … A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his or her conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

Portera v. State of Ala. Dept. of Finance

322 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 21, 2004

Where the law that the government employee allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offpnse, the employee is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 . … Thus, the remaining issue under the qualified-immunity analysis is whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law. 16 *1296 To determine whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law, the court

Estate of Smith v. Michigan

256 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 7, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all federal constitutional claims. … Furthermore, when a defendant asserts a qualified immunity bar in a motion to dismiss a section 1983 claim, the plaintiffs complaint must *713 establish the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

III Qualified immunity “shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … objectively unreasonable under clearly established federal law.

Perez v. United States

103 F. Supp. 3d 1180 · District Court, S.D. California · May 1, 2015

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can allege the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right. Pearson v. … Defendant Fisher "moves to dismiss the SAC, but only as to the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity....” (ECF No. 65-1 at 9). .

Wachtler v. County Of Herkimer

35 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 9, 1994

Vehicle & Traffic Law Sec. 1800(a). 20 We have held that the Fourth Amendment proscription of strip-searches of misdemeanor arrestees without reasonable suspicion is clearly enough established to preclude the defense of qualified … Thus, the individual defendants involved in the strip-search are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 23 Herkimer County, however, does not have qualified immunity, Owen v.

Dooley v. St. Louis County

187 S.W.3d 882 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2006

from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under [Section] 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Coker on Behalf of Coker v. Henry

813 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 1993

The question of qualified immunity generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … In asserting qualified immunity, defendants contend the asserted due process right was not clearly established at the time Craig Coker was abused.

Williams v. Wapinsky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2024

A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. … Given that Williams has failed to allege that Defendants violated a clearly established right in this setting, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this Eighth Amendment claim. IV.

Ronnie Jackson v. Jeff Gutzmer

866 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 2017

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “The immunity standard in Harlow itself eliminates all motive-based claims in which the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.” Id. at 592.

Mahoney v. Hankin

844 F.2d 64 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1988

clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue.” … In evaluating Hankin’s qualified immunity defense to these allegations, we must assess the “objective legal reasonableness” of his actions “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [those actions

Meagen Brinegar v. C.O. Lumpbert individually and in his official capacitys

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2020

The circuit court granted WVRJCFA’s motion first, in part on the application of qualified immunity. Ms. … Therefore, we find no error in the circuit court’s application of qualified immunity. In her third assignment of error, Ms.