Case law

D'Agastino v. City of Warren

75 F. App'x 990 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2003

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Ross v. Beckham County Board of County Commissioners

61 F. App'x 620 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 31, 2003

able to prove, but whether certain given facts showed a violation of “clearly established” law. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas

116 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 1997

The judges filed a response in which they argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly established law will not defeat qualified immunity if “an objectively reasonable view of the facts” might lead an official not to realize that he was breaking the law. Matherne v.

Abilio Hernandez v. Jason Boles

949 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2020

We therefore turn to whether the law was clearly established. 2. Clearly Established Right This brings us to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … But, to overcome qualified immunity, the clearly established law must be specific enough “to put a reasonable officer on notice that the conduct at issue was unconstitutional.” Lewis, 779 F.3d at 417.

Andy Thayer v. Ralph Chiczewski

705 F.3d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights Nos. 10-1974 & 10-2064 15 of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Id.

Wilson v. Poulos

697 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2010

Defendant Poulos’s entitlement to qualified immunity is clear under the second prong of the Katz test. 1 The “clearly established” inquiry requires the Court to look to the time of the events in question. … Since this right was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs incarceration, Defendant Poulos is entitled to qualified immunity.

Motley v. Parks

432 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

If the right was hot clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields the officer from further litigation. Id. … Qualified Immunity Having determined that Motley’s factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to evaluating whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer

Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo

72 Haw. 586 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1992

right which was clearly *589 established at the time the defendant acted. … Under Siegert the protected right must be clearly established.

Graniczny v. City of El Paso, Tex.

809 F. Supp. 2d 597 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 7, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from suit under § 1983 to government officials provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which … Thus, this analysis encompasses the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis previously mentioned: whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Fultz v. Whittaker

261 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 2, 2003

Defendants argue that this evidence establishes that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiffs remaining claims. … The final steps in the qualified immunity analysis require the Court to determine whether the right Whittaker allegedly violated was a “clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

Matthew Schantz v. Benny Deloach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “completely protects government offi- cials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individ- ual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established USCA11 … As discussed below, we agree with the district court’s deci- sion to dispose of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Green v. Thoryk

30 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1998

. ¶¶ 18, 22, qualify as a violation of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Refusal to provide redress for baseless claims does not violate a clearly established right.

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

David Wadkins v. Robert Arnold, and the First Bank & Trust Company

214 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 2000

Second, even if the arrest of Wadkins violated a clearly established constitutional right, Detective Arnold maintains that he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably; that is, a reasonable … See Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 316 (“[T]he most obvious possibility [of exceptional circumstances supporting qualified immunity despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right] is mistaken official advice

Mullinax v. McElhenney

672 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 10, 1987

At best, defendants could be entitled to qualified immunity for these acts if, in doing the acts, they did not violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … and property rights were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed at the time.

Miami-Dade County v. Pozos

242 So. 3d 1152 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 15, 2017

or qualified immunity. … before it, clearly established the County’s immunity from suit.

Davis v. Holly

835 F.2d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Davis to have been clearly established in this jurisdiction. … Fitzgerald teaches that if a qualified-immunity defense is to be defeated on the ground that the constitutional violation was obvious, the constitutional rights in question must have been “clearly established” and must have

Taylor v. City of Shreveport

653 So. 2d 232 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1995

Further, the court found that the officers enjoyed qualified immunity because *236 their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional principle which a reasonable person would have known." … . § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Division

58 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2014

Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) he was deprived of a constitutionally-protected right (2) that was “so clearly established that a reasonable officer … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a plaintiffs claims of constitutional violation “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Shultz v. Sundberg

577 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 13, 1984

Defendants Sundberg, Vaden, Mix, Sheffield, Gorsuch and Hickey’s Motion for Summary Judgment — Qualified Immunity. … Under the test for official immunity, as modified by Harlow , on a motion such as this for summary judgment, the court may determine, “not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at