Case law

66 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 290, 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,347 Susan A. Bator v. State of Hawaii, and Carolyn M. Kainuma, in Her Individual Capacity Warren T. Asaeda, in His Individual Capacity

39 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

right to be free of harassment that is motivated by gender. 28 Qualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free of sexual harassment was not clearly established during the period of Bator's employment.

Nunez v. Simms

341 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional right. … The plaintiff's showing of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right is a “prerequisite” to overcoming the qualified immunity defense; failure to do so obviates the need to address the

Lisa Haberthur v. City of Raymore

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 11, 1997

violation of the substantive due process right to bodily integrity or privacy, and the courts of appeal have recognized that the right may be 4 The Supreme Court has recently discussed what is needed to establish … Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1992) (parole officer not entitled to qualified immunity for depriving woman of clearly established due process right to bodily privacy by entering a bathroom stall and watching her

Hokamp, Pamela v. Blevins, Erman

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jun 6, 2024

Milwaukee Cnty., 44 F.4th 605, 620 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights . . . .”). … The plaintiff bears the burden of defeating the defendant’s claim to qualified immunity. Taylor v.

Wood v. Bailey (MAG+)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 5, 2022

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Wheeler, 843 F.3d 473, 480 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified Immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the

Ghaith v. Rauschenberger

778 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 10, 2011

“Qualified immunity provides ‘that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Lennox v. Miller

968 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 29, 2020

Officers Miller and Clarke contend that because their actions did not violate “clearly established law,” the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity at this juncture. … “There are therefore two steps to the qualified immunity analysis: first, whether the plaintiff established that his constitutional rights were violated, and second, whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’

Mick v. Brewer

76 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 1996

Turning to the merits, “[qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law. Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535 .

Sueiro Vazquez v. Torregrosa De La Rosa

494 F.3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

clearly established rights of the plaintiffs. … For example, in Borges Colón, an advice of counsel defense failed to establish qualified immunity.

Torchinsky v. Siwinski

942 F.2d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 9, 1991

The basic purposes of qualified immunity bear repeating. … This objective test involves an inquiry into whether a government official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Fuchilla v. Prockop

682 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 1987

If the law prohibiting the official act was clearly established then “a reasonably competent public official” should have known of it and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily fail” unless the official claims … If, however, the law was not clearly established, the defendant will be immune unless the plaintiff can show that the defendant actually knew that he was violating the law.

Assance v. Lincoln County

District Court, D. Montana · Feb 11, 2025

Holzer’s argument for qualified immunity was denied because clearly established law prohibited him from shooting an erratically behaving individual that did not pose an immediate threat to either himself or others. … Compare with Wilkins, 350 F.3d at 955 (rejecting qualified immunity appeal due to factual dispute where “there is no question whether the officers’ actions .. . violated clearly established law”) and Toscano v.

Kenneth Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, North Caro

789 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 15, 2015

To successfully avail themselves of qualified immunity, Defendants must show either that no constitutional violation occurred or that the right violated was not clearly established at the timé it was violated. Id. … Qualified immunity shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 531 .

Drumgold v. Callahan

707 F.3d 28 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Callahan argues that, even if the evidence he withheld was material, he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense.

Dan Turner and Henry Bonaparte v. Troy Perry

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jan 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions from suit if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly-established law. Anderson v. … Appellants contend that they nevertheless are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right protecting Perry = s speech.

Williams v. Mehra

186 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1999

“Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary-judgment stage is a ‘final’ judgment subject to immediate appeal.” Behrens v. … Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Randell v. Davis

986 F.2d 1419 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1993

Branch v. Carroll County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 22, 2020

“A plaintiff must make a two-part showing to overcome a qualified immunity defense. … Summary Against the defendants’ good faith assertion of qualified immunity, Branch failed to establish a constitutional violation.

Town of Port Deposit v. Petetit

113 Md. App. 401 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1997

Whether a defendant possesses a qualified immunity is ultimately an issue of law for the court to determine. … of an absolute immunity defense or a Harlow type of qualified immunity defense; the issues would be legal ones.

Waganfeald v. Gusman

674 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 2012

light of clearly established law at the time of the violation.”21 A defendant violates clearly established law only if “the contours of [the] right are sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood … established law, so the district court should have granted him judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity. 27 McCoy v.