Case law

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).

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

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

Paul Knox v. Kenneth L. McGinnis and Thomas Roth

998 F.2d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 20, 1993

According to Knox, the qualified immunity defense “is available to protect defendant[s] only as far as case law establishes that th[e] use is constitutional. Beyond these limits, qualified immunity does not apply.” … Knox misunderstands the .qualified immunity doctrine. The question is not whether the conduct is clearly constitutional, but whether it is clearly unconstitutional.

Poston v. Unified School District No. 387

286 Kan. 809 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Aug 1, 2008

A school gymnasium has been held to be *814 qualified “public property” for the purposes of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 75-6104(o), and its use for basketball practice was clearly a recreational use. … Curiously, Jackson *821 I makes that point quite clearly.

Lopez v. San Luis Valley, Board of Cooperative Educational Services

977 F. Supp. 1422 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 17, 1997

the clearly established law. … Therefore, defendants Espinoza and Henderson did not violate any “clearly established” law in 1994 and 1995, and they are entitled to summary judgment on their defense of qualified immunity.

Weigle v. Pifer ex rel. City of Vienna Police Department

139 F. Supp. 3d 760 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 14, 2015

These material disagreements preclude the application of qualified immunity to the officers at this juncture. The right to be free from excessive force during an arrest is a clearly established constitutional right. … Our Court of Appeals has explained that, in circumstances where qualified immunity is invoked, if there is a “genuine question of material fact regarding ‘[w]hether the conduct allegedly violative of [such a clearly established

Jackson County Drain Commissioner v. Village of Stockbridge

270 Mich. App. 273 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

Drains extending into more than 1 county or affecting lands in more than 1 county, shall be established and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this act regulating the establishment and construction of drains … Instead, the Court clearly stated that MCL 691.1407 did not permit a trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity. Pohutski, supra at 678-679 . In doing so, the Court relied on the plain meaning of the statute.

Blackshear v. City of Miami Beach

799 F. Supp. 2d 1338 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 26, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “[Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendant Wyatt is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration

968 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 16, 2012

Chamizo finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish any violation of a clearly established constitutional right. (Id. at 5-15.) … In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Way v. Shawnee Township

192 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue Truesdale is entitled to qualified immunity. *881 Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability. Mitchell v. … was “clearly established” when he or she did so.

Rene Tellier v. Sharon Fields

230 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

of clearly established rights. … Horne supports the need to address the constitutional question when a court finds that qualified immunity does not exist because the right asserted is clearly established.

Clark v. Donahue

885 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1995

were not clearly established at the time in question. … Accordingly, whether a right was sufficiently clearly established for purposes of invoking qualified immunity is a question of law. Marshall, 984 F.2d at 793 .

Daniel F. Sullivan v. Frederick R. Carrick

888 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

This court must look to the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [the defendant’s] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,’ to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.” Unwin v. … The qualifying test for qualified immunity is in two parts: whether (1) Sullivan’s constitutional rights were violated; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established such that Carrick would have known that his conduct

Bernier v. Trump

299 F. Supp. 3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

The court held: Plaintiff's Bivens claims are easily dismissed on the second prong of the qualified immunity test because the rights Plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … As noted above, this court dismissed Plaintiff's Bivens claim on the second "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test. See Pearson v.

Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals

133 F.4th 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 2025

immunity because the Former Employees have failed to cite a clearly established right. … Nonetheless, the Commissioner is entitled to qualified immunity because the Former Employees’ claims against her are not based on clearly established law. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Porterfield v. Lott

156 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1998

not violate clearly established rights of which a reason- able person would have known." … Officials lose the protection of the immunity if they vio- late a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that an objectively reasonable

Knisley v. PIKE CTY. JOINT VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DIST.

604 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2010

The defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Our Circuit’s clearly established case law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection.

Hart v. Artus

District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 16, 2021

Next, Plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply to any of the defendants, since the constitutional rights which Plaintiffs allege were violated were all clearly established, such that a reasonable defendant … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the