Case law

Caddell v. Campbell

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2021

Separately, he argues that even if a jailor could bear legal liability in that setting, it was not clearly established that a jailor could, and thus qualified immunity is warranted. (Id. at #209–213). … To succeed on his qualified immunity defense, on the other hand, Jones must establish that Cadell failed to allege that Jones’s “conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established law at the time.”

Batyukova v. Doege

994 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2021

We AFFIRM the grant of qualified immunity and summary judgment. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct either did not violate a federal right of the plaintiff or that right was not clearly established at the time of the relevant events.

Johnson-El v. Schoemehl

878 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1989

of clearly established law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a clearly established right, the contours of which are sufficiently clear that

Eric Thurairajah v. Trooper Lagarian Cross

3 F.4th 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

-4- Specifically, he asserts that, under Arkansas law, “malice” is equated with the “clearly established” prong of federal qualified immunity and that no analysis of Trooper Cross … established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Melancon v. Ascension Parish

823 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 10, 1993

If a constitutional violation is established, the Court must then determine whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. 5 The second prong of this test is clearly satisfied. … was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. 19 Therefore, the defendants would be prohibited from relying on the defense of qualified immunity.

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.

Jones v. Buchanan

325 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

“[T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the events at issue. Id. … immunity. 7 Thus, years before 1999, it was clearly established that a police officer was not entitled to use unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force against a handcuffed, secured citizen, who posed no threat

Torres v. City of Madera

655 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 18, 2009

Defendant Noriega is entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning when weapon confusion would violate the Fourth Amendment was not clearly established at the time of the October 27, 2002 shooting. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Arakawa v. Sakata

133 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 6, 2001

, either absolute quasi-judicial immunity, statutory immunity, or qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state and local officials from suit as long as their conduct did not “violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Johnson v. Perry

140 F. Supp. 3d 222 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 21, 2015

clearly established at the time of the defendants’ acts in question.” … The qualified immunity analysis involves relating the legal standard of conduct to the facts established by the evidence in the case at hand.

Debbie Floyd v. Larry Laws, and City of Sherwood, a Municipal Corporation

929 F.2d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 30, 1991

Because these rights are clearly established, Floyd contends, defendant Laws was not entitled to a jury instruction on qualified immunity. … If Floyd’s line of reasoning were correct, then any plaintiff could preclude her opponent’s qualified immunity defense simply by alleging violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

Patel v. Hall

849 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2017

Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to these claims, so the burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish both that the defendants violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the … We must not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality” because “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’” Id.

Statchen v. Palmer, et al.

2009 DNH 137 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 15, 2009

Even if the force used fell into the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force, Scott and Palmer would be entitled to qualified immunity. The cell incident is less clearly defined. … The statute also echoes the standard for qualified immunity.

Rafael Navarro v. Sherman Block

250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: 9 [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights . . . . … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a §§ 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is "clearly established " is relevant only to qualified immunity. 11 Regardless, the explicit holding

ESTATE OF CASSARA BY CASSARA v. State of Ill.

853 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1994

In order to penetrate defendants’ shield of qualified immunity as government officials performing discretionary functions, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established … established and the state officials’ actions clearly illegal.

Harbert International v. James

157 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

clearly established law. … violate clearly established law, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects him.

Rayfield v. Grand Rapids, City of

373 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 17, 2018

If either factor is not satisfied, qualified immunity shields the officer from damages. … . *970 In sum, "[t]o survive [a] motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that 'plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly

Jones v. PRAMSTALLER

678 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 22, 2009

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … Cabinet for Workforce Dev., 289 F.3d 958 , 964 (6th Cir.2002). 5 *629 This means that Jones cannot defeat the qualified-immunity defense with preAugust 28, 2007 precedent “clearly establishing” his general right to be free

Jerry Turpin and Bonnie Turpin v. The County of Rock, Nebraska Galen Svoboda, in His Official Capacity and Jim Anderson, in His Official Capacity

262 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2001

Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the events in … The inquiry in determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity focuses on whether the Appellants have asserted a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and, if so, whether there are genuine

Hathaway v. Bazany

507 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Brosseau, 543 U.S. 194 (2004), makes it highly unlikely that the Hathaways could prevail in establishing that Bazany infringed on a clearly established right because of its emphasis on the “‘hazy border between excessive