Case law

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

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.

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.

Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 26, 2018

To avoid the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v. … Because the constitutional right to be free of discrimination because of race and/or sex and police “cover-ups” was clearly established, Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

Timothy Nelson v. City of Davis

685 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2012

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields an official from damages in a civil suit unless the plaintiff can make the showing that the official’s actions violated a constitutional right, and that the right was “clearly established … As we have previously held, however, “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the ground[ ] that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

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.

Young v. McKune

280 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 30, 2003

Qualified immunity provides government officials immunity from suit as well as from liability for their discretionary acts. Mitchell v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

MacE Ex Rel. Revill v. City of Palestine, Texas

213 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Feb 8, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, like this one, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established

Matwyuk v. Johnson

22 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 23, 2014

Defendant Fildey is not Entitled to Qualified Immunity.820 a. Constitutional Violation.822 i. Government versus Private Speech .822 ii. Facial Challenge.824 iii. As Applied Challenge.826 b. Clearly Established.826 B. … clearly established.”

William E. "Buster" Fisher v. Tom E. Harden, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Morrow County, Ohio

398 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2005

First, he claims that because he pleaded facts sufficient to establish a constitutional violation, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the Defendants. … the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Robert Bethel v. Charlotte Jenkins

988 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2021

immunity and failing to find that Defendants violated Bethel’s clearly established rights. … Finally, the district court agreed with the magistrate judge that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because they did not violate Bethel’s clearly established rights under the First

Keller v. McElveen

744 So. 2d 643 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1999

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the United States Supreme Court discussed the concept of prosecutorial immunity in the context of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit and concluded that the well-established … Qualified immunity ‘“represents the norm’ ” for executive officers ... so when a prosecutor “functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court” he is entitled only to qualified immunity.

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.

L.R. v. School District

60 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2014

doctrine of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time