Case law

Robert E. Kennedy, Jr. Joyce Kennedy v. City of Cleveland, William T. Hanton (85-3819), Frank Wszelaki (85-3827)

797 F.2d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 1986

In principle, the Supreme Court held that absolute or qualified immunity, once established, not only protects the holder against ultimate personal liability in damages but also from the onerous burdens of defense in much … Where a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity the plaintiff must plead facts which, if true, describe a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable public official

Lopez Lopez v. Aran

699 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 14, 1988

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis of qualified immunity. … For reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion and directs a verdict in favor of the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. *366 The doctrine of qualified immunity applies to government officials performing

Loch v. City of Litchfield

837 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 17, 2011

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’ ” Parrish v.

Christophel v. Kukulinsky

61 F.3d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 1995

The individual defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established constitutional right to procedural due process. … When a defendant asserts qualified immunity on summary judgment, the court may determine the currently applicable law and whether that law was clearly established at the time of the actions in question.

Brooks v. Whiteford

384 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 21, 2019

The Supreme Court has recently explained that when a court is deciding whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, "the clearly established right must be defined with specificity," that the court should not "define … Thus, the fact that the right to be from excessive force, as a general principle, has long been clearly established is not dispositive of whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Blue v. Koren

72 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 26, 1995

Circuit in Martin, 812 F.2d at 1432 , "[t]he 'clearly established law' and 'objective reasonableness' facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the 'clearly established law' … When such a motion is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793 .

Kennedy v. Osmanski, III

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 2022

Moreno, 919 F.3d 582, 600-01 (1st Cir. 2019) (holding that FBI agents were not entitled to qualified immunity in a Bivens action arising from a warrantless search of plaintiff’s home in … Moreover, First Circuit precedent establishes the viability of Bivens claims in the aftermath of an unreasonable search during a routine law enforcement investigation. See DeMayo v.

William Cantrell v. DeKalb County

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 10, 1996

We have determined that the trial court erred because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and did not violate any of the church members’ clearly … THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the law enforcement officials have presented undisputed facts demonstrating that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter

Brown v. Montana

442 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, D. Montana · Jun 12, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Wills is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established as to that social worker’s action, it likewise was clearly established here.

Orem v. Rephann

523 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 28, 2008

Hence, qualified immunity will shield Deputy Rephann from suit if “a reasonable officer” could have believed tasering Orem was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information Deputy Re-phann possessed … Rather, Deputy Rephann used the taser to punish or intimidate Orem — a use that is not objectively reasonable, is contrary to clearly established law, and not protected by qualified immunity. Y.

M.C. ex rel. Crawford v. Amrhein

598 F. App'x 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

The district court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … While M.C. may well have a remedy under state law, 3 we hold that qualified immunity *150 bars his federal constitutional claims because the defendants did not violate M.C.’s clearly established rights.

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

Avi Adelman v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 2019

Adelman bears the burden of negating Branch’s qualified immunity defense by showing “(1) that [Branch] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … “The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right” for qualified immunity purposes. Westfall v. Luna, 903 F.3d 534, 542 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Mangieri v.

Colman v. Vasquez

142 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Colman’s Complaint does not allege a violation of clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Ben Krein v. Larry Norris

309 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

not specifically and conclusively ruled on the issue of qualified immunity. … asserted the violation of a constitutional right [and] the right is clearly established.”

Cipes v. Graham

386 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2005

to qualified immunity. … Law is not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity by district court opinions, but by the decisions of circuit courts or the Supreme Court. Hawkins v.

Calnimptewa v. Flagstaff Police Department

200 Ariz. 567 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 28, 2001

We said it would be absurd to deny immunity for a failure to stop which, if made, could have resulted in a failure to arrest which would clearly have been immunized. … against the public defendants only if the plaintiffs established gross negligence.

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.

Greenwood v. State of New York

939 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 3, 1996

Qualified Immunity Individual defendants rely on the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion for summary judgment. … Thus, defendants claiming qualified immunity must show either: (1) that the right “was [not] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” or (2) that “reasonable persons in their position would not have understood

Leroy J. Matherne, Cross-Appellant v. Charles C. Wilson, Cross-Appellees

851 F.2d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 1988

Fitzgerald 3 standard of “qualified” immunity, a public official *756 cannot be saddled with damages for actions that do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have known.” 4 Wilson argues that in firing Matherne he violated no “clearly established law” and thus was entitled to Harlow immunity.