Case law

Becerra v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City

272 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 25, 2003

immunity’ Defendant Mots argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct violated no clearly established right of Plaintiffs. … Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Than Orn v. City of Tacoma

949 F.3d 1167 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 2020

Turning to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the panel held that plaintiff’s right to be free from the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the shooting. … B We turn next to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether Orn’s right to be free from the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the shooting.

Figueroa v. Gates

207 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

basis of qualified immunity. … On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “whether the right was clearly established,” Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , the Court asks whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

840 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 1993

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” and “ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … The Ninth Circuit has recently held: When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles

Thames v. City of Westland

310 F. Supp. 3d 783 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendant officers argue qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983. … 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 would have

Dakshesh Parikh v. Citizens Medical Center

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2014

Appellants argue that the alleged violations of the AKS and Stark Law were not clearly established at the time of the instant offenses. … This clearly established statutory right is precisely what Relators alleged Appellants to have violated.

Mena v. City of Simi Valley

332 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

They argue that the district court erred in ruling that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Muehler and Brill argue' that they should be shielded from liability to Mena under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 2 “Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens

Garvey v. MacDonald

665 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 22, 2009

To summarize, courts in strip-search cases follow the familiar three-part qualified immunity inquiry: (1) have the plaintiffs alleged a deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) was the right clearly established … Accordingly, the measuring date of August 4, 2008, is firmly established for qualified immunity purposes here.

Grace Ray v. E. J. Foltz

370 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 2004

II The Qualified Immunity Defense When government officials act in a way that knowingly violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known, they are … We call this defense “qualified immunity” because the official is immune from a damage lawsuit, qualified upon his ability to show that he did not knowingly violate the plaintiff*s clearly established constitutional right

John Holeton v. City of Livonia

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2019

She -3- also identified grounds for concluding that she had qualified immunity and that the Holetons could not establish grounds for avoiding her qualified immunity. … An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Jeffers v. Gomez

240 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2001

Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … The district court correctly determined that the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law governing Appellants’ conduct was clearly established—had been met.

Bamont v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

163 F. Supp. 3d 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016

analyzing qualified immunity under Saucier v. … established.” 50 Based on our analysis, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for Bamont’s claims in Counts I & II. ii.

Raspberry v. Johnson

88 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

Wood v. Sunn

852 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be “clearly established” for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrant-less search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque

448 F.3d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 31, 2006

He asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no constitutional violation and, in the alternative, no violation of clearly settled law. … If, on the other hand, a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. . . .

David L. Canedy, Jr. v. Peggy Boardman, Jeffrey P. Endicott, Karen Radtke, and John Bell

91 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1996

As the district court noted, qualified immunity was therefore available as a complete defense. … The district court properly applied the defense of qualified immunity here.

PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.

100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2000

Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the private defendants are clearly immune for their activities involved with the negotiation, execution, and attempts to implement the MSA, the Qualifying Statute, and the Model Act. … Moreover, no amount of colorful pleading can obscure the fact that plaintiffs’ challenge is, in fact, to the MSA, the Qualifying Statute and the Model Act, all of which are clearly immunized, as are the actions incidental

Cagle Ex Rel. Estate of Butler v. Sutherland

334 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2003

functions are e ntitled to qualified immunity ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Butler’s 15 Even if Jailer Cole had violated the Constitution, he likely would be entitled to qualified immunity, having violated no clearly established constitutional rights.

Jose Chavez v. James Ziglar

683 F.3d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 20, 2012

intertwined with” and “directly implicated by” the issue of qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to review both whether the supervisory defendants have qualified immunity — which turns on legal issues such as whether they allegedly violated “clearly established” rights, Behrens v.

Malone v. Chambers County Board of Commissioners

875 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 21, 1994

Malone contends that qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from suit where, as here, their conduct deprived an individual of a clearly-established, federally-protected right. … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly