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.

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.

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

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.”

Entergy, Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska

241 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2001

a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 The Generators and USE respond that qualified immunity is not available to the officials in their individual capacities because clearly established federal law was violated, that … Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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

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.

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.

Horwitz v. State Board of Medical Examiners of State of Colorado

822 F.2d 1508 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 7, 1987

or qualified immunity. … Horwitz's license and refused to reinstate it until May 1, 1984, they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of due process. Dr.

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.

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.

Bloom v. Miami-Dade County

816 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 16, 2011

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … ’s actions violate clearly established law.”

Keeble v. Cisneros

664 F. Supp. 1076 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 15, 1987

Against this statutory and factual background, the various individual Defendants claim absolute and qualified immunity. … A qualified immunity protects a public official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

Urban v. Henley

654 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 20, 1987

The Court has established an elaborate set of rules on immunity for both state and federal officers. … The law does not appear to have been clearly established on the claims made by the plaintiff since the plaintiff’s case was the first controversy involving these issues.

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

Robert Pachaly, Jr. v. City of Lynchburg R.D. Viar William G. Petty, and Commonwealth of Virginia

897 F.2d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 2, 1990

A government official performing a discretionary function does so clothed with qualified immunity shielding him from civil liability as long as his actions do not violate clearly established tenets of constitutional law. … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant's conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims