Case law

Gilles v. Repicky

511 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Repicky's Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Nevertheless, Repicky is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if it was objectively reasonable for him to

Bonnie Lutz v. Weld County School District No. 6, William A. Mitchell, James B. Elliott, Winifred Gettman

784 F.2d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 1986

Where the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, it is *343 the plaintiffs burden to convince the court that the law is clearly established: A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional … or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

City of Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids Police Command Officers Ass'n

346 F. Supp. 3d 1061 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 12, 2018

Finally, Third-Party Defendants Rahinsky, Savage, Kiddle, McWaters, Schnurstein and Getting are entitled to qualified immunity because Janiskee has not established that his rights were clearly established at the time such … Because Janiskee has not met his burden to show that the law was clearly established, disputes of material fact whether the right was violated do not preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Muschette ex rel. A.M. v. Gionfriddo

910 F.3d 65 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 7, 2018

However, Officer Gionfriddo is entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that, given the undisputed facts, his conduct complied with this clearly established law. … Torreso , 764 F.3d 217 , 237 (2d Cir. 2014) ("An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury."

Horne v. Coughlin

191 F.3d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 21, 1999

immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Because the Ninth Circuit believed this constitutional right was already clearly established, it had denied qualified immunity. See id. at 1712.

Motley v. Parks

383 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 2004

Violation of Clearly Established Law: Unconstitutional Search The officers assert that because they reasonably believed they were conducting a parole search of Jamerson’s residence, they are entitled to qualified immunity … The difference is merely factual, and the qualified immunity standard does not require that a constitutional principle be clearly established in every factual context before officers can be held liable for violating it.

Johnson v. Dekalb Cnty.

391 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 2019

Johnson's favor. 100 The second qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional violation was clearly established. … Johnson's clearly-established constitutional rights, and he consequently is not entitled to qualified immunity. 209 Ms.

Wallace v. County of Comal

400 F.3d 284 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2005

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Cook v. City of Cincinnati

103 Ohio App. 3d 80 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 1995

This right is known in law as qualified immunity. Qualified immunity in this context is a question of federal law. State law immunity has no application to a 1983 claim. … The United States Supreme Court has stated that “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Daniel P. And Eunice A. Leclair v. Lawrence R. Hart and Thomas Larson

800 F.2d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 1986

We further note that defendants Hart and Larson are covered by qualified immunity unless their alleged actions on November 10, 1982, violated clearly established law at the time that Hart and Larson acted. … Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners, 747 F.2d 139, 148 (3d Cir.1984) (no qualified immunity if the defendant violates “a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a

No. 98-9205

180 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 9, 1999

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (stating that the defense of qualified immunity does not withstand a finding that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right of … To survive a motion to dismiss under the second prong, the plaintiff's pleading need not clearly establish that the defendant harbored retaliatory intent.

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

court concluded that taking the official's facts as true, the official's actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of qualified immunity; or (2) the district court concluded that given … In Harlow, the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official's actions has been clearly established.

Seitz v. DeQuarto

777 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 6, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has established that the state’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment extends to individuals acting in their roles as agents of the government. … Individual state employees may claim qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

W. Va. Board of Education and L. Wade Linger, Jr. v. Jorea M. Marple

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2015

the constitutional standards clearly established at the time[?]” … the present context to qualified immunity is a clearly legitimate act.”

Jenkins v. Talladega City Board Of Education

115 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1997

Qualified immunity accommodates these interests by protecting those who act in reasonable reliance upon established legal principles but permitting liability for clearly unconstitutional conduct. … The "make specific" standard is substantially higher than the "clearly established" standard used to judge qualified immunity in section 1983 cases. Id. at 1393.

Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard

637 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v. … The Supreme Court in Saucier established a two-step test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Charvette Williams v. Rodney Herron

687 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified Immunity On summary judgment, government officials possess qualified immunity unless (1) the facts plaintiff has shown amount to a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right violated was clearly … Thus, because our claim analysis is the same regardless of whether qualified immunity is implicated, we may rely on cases not involving qualified immunity when determining whether a violation is clearly established.

Kenneth Andrew FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carroll SOUTH; Henry Risley, Warden; Lee Baker; Bob Williams, Defendants-Appellees

92 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The statute cannot be applied retroactively to make the law clear in such a way as to create liability for the prison officials, who are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clear in 1985. … Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immuni *990 ty. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Brown v. Miller

519 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 27, 2008

immunity defense to such claims seeks to shield from liability government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … a constitutional right”; if the court finds a violation then it proceeds to the second step, which is to determine whether “the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.”9 “To be clearly

Larry Wayne Foster v. City of Lake Jackson, A.A. McClain Etc., William Yenne, Etc., P.C. Miller, Etc., Matthew Houston, Etc., and John Dewey, Etc.

28 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1994

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, “ ‘[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations *429 state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.’”