Case law

Kerr v. Puckett

967 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 21, 1997

Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ). … Consequently, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Kerr’s suit for damages on his Establishment Clause claims.

Jones v. Marcum

197 F. Supp. 2d 991 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 2002

is per se violative of a “clearly established” right. … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Jones’ had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

Crawford v. Geiger

131 F. Supp. 3d 703 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2015

The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Swedlund v. Foster

657 N.W.2d 39 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2003

Otherwise, the protection of qualified immunity is effectively lost if there must be a trial to establish that no trial is necessary. Saucier v. … The test articulated by this Court in Hart is similar: “To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable

(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

Attocknie Ex Rel. M.P. v. Smith

798 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Cherry’s entry of Aaron’s home was clearly contrary to well-established law. He is not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of unlawful entry. … It then summarizes his view of the law of qualified immunity but concludes that “[t]he second stage of qualified immunity analysis, whether a right was ‘clearly established’ need not even be performed, as Defendant Smith

Amore v. Novarro

624 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

Government officials are entitled to 2 qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 4 reasonable person would have known." … Ct. at 813 ("We now hold that the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement and that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established

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."

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.

Andrews v. Crump

144 N.C. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

They may, however, raise the defense of qualified immunity to section 1983 claims. Id. … Under the doctrine of 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

Anderson v. Vasquez

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 2019

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both that the defendant violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established in light of the circumstances that occurred … “The burden of showing that an officer violated clearly established law falls on the plaintiff, and a plaintiff’s citation of general rules or abstract rights is insufficient to strip a 1983 defendant of his qualified immunity

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.”

Tormasi v. Lanigan

363 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." *538 Mammaro v. … clearly established right to circumcision."

Martin v. Haas

556 S.W.3d 509 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 11, 2018

That case is clearly not on point. … elections in this State are legally qualified to vote in such elections" modifies the requirement of "establish[ing] a system of permanent personal registration."

Breault v. Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners

401 Mass. 26 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 13, 1987

established.” … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (principle of qualified immunity allows defendant to seek summary judgment on ground that, on “clearly established principles [of law],” he could have reasonably believed his acts to be

Jennifer L. Burbridge v. Marcus Biggins

2 F.4th 774 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Alternatively, Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in this circuit whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applied to bar § 1983 conspiracy claims.

Ex Parte Madison County Bd. of Education

1 So. 3d 980 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2008

Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or … Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or

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.

Johnson v. El Paso Cty Sheriff

51 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 1995

-2- their original answer on March 23 raising the affirmative defenses of absolute and qualified immunity. … For a defendant pleading qualified immunity to be liable, the defendant official's conduct must have violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Shoemaker v. Smith

353 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1999

'abstract issu[e] of law’ relating to qualified immunity ... … —typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established. ..