Case law

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v. Richard P. Seiter

858 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1988

The court stated that this decision added to the evidence that clearly established the protected right in this case. Until recently, the controlling Supreme Court case on qualified immunity, Wood v. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Demetrius Hill v. C.O. Crum

727 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 14, 2013

We do possess jurisdiction to consider this appeal from the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that Crum claims that his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Winfield v. … His argument is that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Hill’s claimed constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the assault.

Hazley v. Roy

378 F. Supp. 3d 751 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 26, 2019

"Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his [or her] individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of 'clearly established statutory or … C Once the right has been defined at the appropriate level of specificity, the next inquiry is whether that right was clearly established. Defendants challenge this component of qualified immunity, as well.

Cunningham v. Kramer

178 F. Supp. 3d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … O’Neill held that,'under circumstances substantially identical to those asserted here, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that law was not “clearly established” that inmates have a constitution right

Hunter v. Town of Edwards

871 F. Supp. 2d 558 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · May 16, 2012

were clearly established at the time it was taken.”) … unreasonable in the light of that then clearly established law.”

Littles v. Commissioner of Correction

444 Mass. 871 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 12, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials from liability for civil damages for the performance of discretionary functions, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … if so, the inquiry shifts to whether the right was so clearly established *879 that it would be plain to a reasonable official that his conduct was unlawful.

Richmond Lapolla v. County of Union

449 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2017

The qualified immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … And, as we observed, "[q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id. at 28 (alteration in original).

Hawkins v. State

117 N.C. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the right violated was clearly established. Clark v. Link, 855 F.2d 156, 160 (4th Cir. 1988). … Accordingly, defendants did not violate any clearly established due process rights in terminating plaintiff and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth-Amendment due process claim. C.

(PC) Calloway v. Nieves

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 21, 2022

Lastly, defendants contend that they are entitled to 14 qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established federal law. … Qualified Immunity 22 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 23 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Manzanares v. Roosevelt Cnty. Adult Det. Ctr.

331 F. Supp. 3d 1260 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 30, 2018

Although the Tenth Circuit has recognized a sliding scale for qualified immunity's clearly established inquiry, see Casey v. … Fitzgerald , when the Supreme Court moved to an objective test, the clearly established prong became a part of the qualified immunity test.

Westmoreland v. State

73 Wash. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 31, 1994

In deciding whether qualified immunity applies to discretionary functions, courts apply a 2-part objective test: (1) was the relevant law "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation? … is clearly established that the particular act by the public official constitutes a violation of the right involved, rather than whether the right itself is clearly established”), cert. granted, vacated and appeal dismissed

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, M. v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist.

300 F. Supp. 3d 857 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2018

In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts ... to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … "[T]o evaluate the 'clearly established law' prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right."

Martin v. Hallum

2010 Ark. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 24, 2010

Toward this end, police officers have qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know. Harlow v. … A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine

Duca v. Martins

941 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1996

Since defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal .claims, and Duca has not identified any distinct right clearly established by state law, defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity on his Massachusetts … As demonstrated in the present section of this opinion, the typical non-Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether the particular right implicated is "clearly established.”

Robin Mayfield v. Butler Snow, L.L.P.

976 F.3d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 2020

But in the context of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that an allegedly violated right was clearly established. See, e.g., Wigginton v. Jones, 964 F.3d 329, 338 (5th Cir. 2020). … True, the Supreme Court has blessed our “sound discretion” to pivot solely on prong two of the qualified-immunity analysis. 1 And “clearly established law” is often outcome-determinative.

Abbas Khoshdel .M.D., Llyod Aschberger, Terri Pursley, and Jamie Williams v. Charles Goosby

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Nov 1, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … the clearly established right.

Heller v. Plave

743 F. Supp. 1553 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 18, 1990

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates government officials from personal liability for actions within their discretionary authority. Harlow v. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires two inquiries: (1) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct; and, (2) whether the alleged misconduct violated that clearly

City of San Juan v. Gonzalez

22 S.W.3d 69 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 1, 2000

the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law as their actions in effecting appellee’s arrest were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the time … If there is, we determine whether the government official’s “actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law,” entitling him to qualified immunity. Id.

Rooks v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Corp. Commission

64 O.B.A.J. 39 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 1992

The presumption of immunity is in favor of the government officials and is not overcome unless it is shown that they violated clearly established law or constitutional rights of which the reasonable official should have known … There is a presumption of qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. McLin v. Trimble, supra, at 1041 , citing Mitchell v.

Fuqua v. Turner

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 29, 2019

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee v. … Fugue [sic] to show that marshal Collier’s [sic] actions violated clearly established constitutional law.”)). The burden therefore shifts to plaintiff “to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.”