Case law

Robertson (ID 76205) v. Lee

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 8, 2019

right was clearly established.” … A dispositive motion based on qualified immunity places the occurred and that the right was clearly established when the violation occurred. Green v.

Horlock v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

890 F.2d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 1989

immunity from damages because defendants’ actions allegedly did not violate any “clearly established” right of plaintiff, as required in order to avoid the qualified immunity of public officials to such suits. … Horlock had no property interest, the defendants did not violate a “clearly established right” and thus were entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 due process claim.

Burnham v. West

681 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 29, 1988

Here the Court, upon reconsideration, intentionally sweeps more broadly than in its earlier ruling on whether defendants violated "clearly established" constitutional rights. … If there are means to show that rights are clearly established other than by controlling precedent as required by Wallace v.

Evans v. City of Zebulon

351 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because as of January 22, 1999, the law was not clearly established that an arrestee could not constitutionally be strip searched under the conditions alleged. … Only decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court of the relevant state clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1032 n. 10. .

Estate of Simpson v. Yellowstone County

229 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, D. Montana · Jan 24, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability so long as the officers’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Clearly Established Right Because a constitutional violation has been found, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis is to ask “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the

Tinsley v. Pittari

952 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. … To the extent the claim is so construed, defendants’ previously-established entitlement to qualified immunity is applicable. The outcome is the same under a Fourteenth Amendment analysis.

Trust & Investment Advisors, Inc. v. Hogsett

830 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 8, 1993

TIA argues that neither are the defendants entitled to qualified immunity, because Count One is for declarative and injunctive relief and Dant had to have known that she was violating TIA’s clearly established rights. … TIA has failed to allege facts which, if proven, would demonstrate that Dant’s actions were objectively unreasonable or violated TIA’s clearly established rights. Dant is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.

Harris v. DeBellis

658 F. App'x 940 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2016

Because De-Bellis asserts qualified immunity, however, we may first consider whether DeBellis violated clearly established law. … Under the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity analysis, DeBellis is entitled to summary judgment unless Harris can identify a genuine issue of fact regarding whether DeBellis had arguable probable cause to

Hilchey v. City of Haverhill

537 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 1, 2008

Before asking the second question, however, the issue of qualified immunity must be addressed. D. Qualified Immunity 1. … Second, the Court must determine whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”. Abrew-Guzman, 241 F.3d at 73 .

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.

McCoy v. City of Columbia

929 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 11, 2013

On appeal, the officers argued that, under Reichle , the passenger’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established and they were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 391-92. … In the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court asks whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of McCoy’s arrest. See Pear *562 son, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Yoak v. Marshall University Board of Governors

223 W. Va. 55 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2008

The appellees contend that the circuit court properly found that qualified immunity is applicable to the instant ease. … Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition

John Schleck and Robert Kraft v. Ramsey County, Suzanne Alliegro, Michael Moriarity and Kathleen Mahoney

939 F.2d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

“Whether an official may prevail in [her] qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ... … No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v.

Stokes v. City of Chicago

744 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1990

The standard for granting qualified immunity is well-established. … It is clearly established that the fourth amendment requires truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause. Franks v.

Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers and John Urbank, Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers

326 F.3d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2003

As governmental officials acting within the scope of their duty, Urbank and Summers can claim qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability as long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Roes ex rel. Bazerman v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services

176 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2001

of qualified immunity. … Simply put, “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Friedman v. Weiner

515 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 3, 1981

A review of the cases suggests that the individual defendants, if entitled to any immunity, are entitled at most to qualified immunity. … Where a public official has or may have a defense based on qualified immunity, the burden is on the defendant to raise the defense and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

William Cass v. City of Dayton

770 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2014

In the alternative, the district court held that House was entitled to qualified immunity because Jordan’s constitutional rights were not clearly established. … There are two general steps to the qualified immunity analysis.

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.