Case law

Al-Turki v. Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2014

-2- motion for qualified immunity. … Defendant contends that even if her alleged actions violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of her alleged violation.

Sabrina Jordan v. John Howard

987 F.3d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2021

a genuine dispute of material fact for trial and that the officers were protected by qualified immunity—because they did not violate McShann’s clearly established rights by using deadly force in response to threatened deadly … The district court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate McShann’s clearly established constitutional rights and their use of deadly force was objectively reasonable.

Don Meadows v. Rockford Housing Authority

861 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

Qualified immunity protects state officials from liability for civil damages unless the plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … A right is clearly established when existing precedent has placed the right’s existence “beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012).

Taylor Ex Rel. Estate of Mason v. Adams

221 F.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

her qualified immunity. … See, e.g., Layne, 119 S.Ct. at 1695 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity despite their unconstitutional conduct because of the lack of clearly established, preexisting law governing that conduct).

James E. Duncan, Cross-Appellee v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck, Cross-Appellants, Highland Coal & Chemical Corporation

844 F.2d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 1988

Harlow made clear that this is an objective test, and that if the right was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to immunity, and the court should dismiss the case without further discovery. 6 Yet the underlying … Clearly, the important policy reasons for granting immunity from suit to government officials would not extend to private parties, who can be adequately protected from liability by merely establishing an affirmative good

Roger Fairley and Richard Gackowski v. Evan Fermaint, Noberto Bercasio, and Fred Coffey

482 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2007

It was clearly established long before the events of which plaintiffs complain that state actors may not assault witnesses in federal litigation. … Only if the answer is affirmative does the court inquire whether the official enjoys qualified immunity.

Mandola v. County of Nassau

222 F. Supp. 3d 203 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2016

and qualified immunity doctrines. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hilliard v. Walker's Party Store, Inc.

903 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 4, 1995

To defeat defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that defendant state officers deprived plaintiff Thomas Lee of a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right while acting under … Although the third right was not clearly established at the time of commission, a municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity as is an individual state defendant. See Garner v.

Bingue v. Prunchak

512 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 15, 2008

Harris, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1769 , 1774 n. 2, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (“Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability _’ Thus, ... an order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable … “On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

April Sabbe v. Washington Cnty Bd of Comm'rs

84 F.4th 807 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2023

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … I would hold that Defendants’ entry onto Sabbe’s property was a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, as to which Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Van Emrik v. Chemung County Department of Social Services

220 A.D.2d 952 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 1995

Plaintiffs contend that questions of fact exist as to whether defendants are entitled to the qualified immunity from liability provided by Social Services Law § 419. … Here, the X rays were clearly not medically indicated.

Stephen Buckley v. J. Michael Fitzsimmons

20 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

a particular right was not “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s acts because it was and is not “established” at all. … Thus there cannot be absolute immunity. But qualified immunity is available unless the acts violated “clearly established” constitutional norms. Harlow, 467 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ; Anderson v.

Krogh v. Sweeney

195 F. Supp. 3d 1049 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 2016

Sweeney argues that he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[QJualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Levine v. Roebuck

550 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 4, 2008

The court then granted Youngs qualified immunity because “the law of the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established at the time of [her] actions.” In Saucier v. … But that proposition was not clearly established by those cases, or by any other.

Nash v. Duncan Park Commission

304 Mich. App. 599 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2014

THE INDENTURE’S USE OF TRUST LANGUAGE Moreover, the document’s language clearly contemplates the establishment of a trust. “[I]t requires no particular form of words to create a trust.” … Although not argued by defendants, we have considered whether the Commission is a “board,” thereby qualifying as immune under MCL 691.1401(e).

Freeman v. Blair

862 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1989

See 793 F.2d at 171-73. 3 We turn to the issues of qualified immunity. … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claims concerning defendants' failure to obtain a search warrant, and that none of the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to

Mayberry v. Spicer

808 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1992

A Defendant has “qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that … To prevail over a claim *567 of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 650 (6th Cir.1988).

Brett C. Kimberlin v. Michael J. Quinlan

6 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 8, 1993

Since then the Court has made it clear that qualified immunity should be granted, and suit dismissed, where the plaintiff “not only failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at … More recently, in Siegert , we clearly explained how the standard applies to a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity: Where the defendant’s subjective intent is an essential component of plaintiffs claim, once

Mitchell v. Coffey County Hospital

903 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 25, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs due process claim because the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs termination. … This exception to the rule that the qualified immunity defense fails where the defendant violated a clearly established right applies only rarely. Id.

Estate of Starks v. Enyart

5 F.3d 230 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are shielded from suit for damages if “a reasonable officer could have believed [the action taken was] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information … An officer’s actions are considered objectively unreasonable “ ‘only if the right allegedly violated is clearly established in a sufficiently particularized sense at the time of the actions at issue.’ ” Knox, 998 F.2d at