Case law

Johnson v. Adams

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 28, 2021

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff first asserts that his federal malicious prosecution and Brady violation claims were clearly established in 1999. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the official violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established at the time” of the official’s conduct. District of Columbia v.

Atteberry v. Nocona General Hospital

430 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 3, 2005

clearly established law.” … Objectively Unreasonable “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Donald Gagne, Etc. v. City of Galveston, and Mike Putnal

805 F.2d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 1986

qualified immunity from damages for his death. … But until then, the defense of qualified immunity remains available.

Pelerin v. Carlton County

498 N.W.2d 33 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1993

To avoid dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity, a plaintiff alleging violation of a constitutional right by a public official must allege that the violated right was “clearly established” in a particularized sense. … The law in this area was thus not “clearly established” when Pelerin was fired.

Collins v. School Board of Dade County, Florida

981 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1993

Most important for qualified immunity purposes, Loudermill established no bright line test for when a delay would become a constitutional violation. 4 See generally Barts v. … Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1194 (11th Cir.1989) ("Harlow's 'clearly established' standard requires that a bright line be crossed" if defense of qualified immunity is to be overcome). 11 No controlling decision involved facts

Pacherille v. Burns

30 F. Supp. 3d 159 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity > generally protects governmental officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, even if the constitutional privileges “are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified ... immunity might still be available ... if it was

Booker v. Graham

974 F.3d 101 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

While qualified immunity “does not require 14 a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must 15 have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” … of qualified immunity.

Gasparre v. City of St. Paul

501 N.W.2d 683 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Konop v. Northwestern School District

26 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Nov 10, 1998

Qualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable *1196 person would have known.’ … qualified immunity.

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 741 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2007

Today qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 *1242 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. 24 By “clearly established … established’ at the time.”

Hydrick v. McDaniel

500 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context … b)(6) based on qualified immunity. 3.

MAHAMED v. Anderson

612 F.3d 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 30, 2010

Pedersen now appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Mahamed’s constitutional rights, and even if he did, the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … “We have jurisdiction over an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity when the issue on appeal ‘turns on a legal determination [of] whether certain facts show a violation of clearly established law.’”

Saved Magazine v. Spokane Police Department

19 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2021

The panel held that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s … Plaintiffs first argue that the district court erred in concluding that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity because the law underpinning the alleged First Amendment violation was clearly established.

Vann v. City of Southaven

199 F. Supp. 3d 1129 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 10, 2016

As such, if a court concludes that the “clearly established” prong provides a clearer basis for deciding the qualified immunity issue, then it may consider that prong first. Pearson v. … Thus, the plaintiff in this case has done exactly what the Supreme Court stated he should not do, namely rely upon the broad Gamer standard in order to meet the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

Siegert v. Gilley

692 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1988

When the Harlow Court redefined the qualified immunity defense it provided an additional basis for defendant to retain his qualified immunity even if his actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Our inquiry does not end with the identification of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the stripping away of defendant’s qualified immunity.

Williams v. Goord

142 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 2001

Even if the applicable law was clearly established when the purported violation occurred, officials may still successfully assert qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were “objectively reasonable.” … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is therefore only appropriate if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed

Williams v. Austen

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2021

Dkt. 20 at 13-15. 10 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 11 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Courts may consider these two questions in either order, and a favorable determination for 15 the defendant on either establishes qualified immunity.

Galloway v. Hadl

548 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 28, 2008

If plaintiffs allegations sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity will not protect defendants. I. … Because plaintiff has not alleged a clearly established violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Hadl, Hofer and Riggs are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. B.

Turpin v. Ray

319 F. Supp. 3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 2018

"clearly established" under the circumstances. … Callahan , Officers Rowley and Strange may still claim qualified immunity as long as the alleged violation was not clearly established at the time. Brown v. Fogle , 819 F.Supp.2d 23 , 28-29 (D.D.C. 2011).

Tonya Weinberg Gilmore v. Pam Hodges

738 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless they violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took place. … The Plaintiffs’ reliance on unpublished case law drawn from other circuits and from the district courts is unavailing, because only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.