Case law

Williams v. Bitner

455 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his “clearly established” rights. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir. 1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.

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

Decotiis v. Whittemore

635 F.3d 22 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 24, 2011

Qualified Immunity The district court held that Defendant Whittemore, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not so clearly established as to put Whittemore on fair … A plaintiff may overcome qualified immunity by first making out the violation of a constitutional right, and second, establishing that the "right was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant's alleged violation

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.”

(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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Cline v. State, Division of Child & Family Services

539 Utah Adv. Rep. 33 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Nov 17, 2005

The Spiel-man court held that the section 1983 claims against Hildebrand were barred by qualified immunity because plaintiffs could not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. … Thus, the section 1983 claims against Forsyth are barred by qualified immunity because Cline cannot show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. B.

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.

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.”

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

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.”

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.

Marcus Blazek v. Juan Santiago

761 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

Qualified immunity shields a public official from liability for civil damages when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evi *923 dence, viewed in the light most favorable to Blazek, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established