Case law

Rodriguez v. Passinault

637 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Garner[, 471 U.S. 1 (1985),] provides a ‘clearly established’ right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.” Id. at 347. … Thus, Pierce is entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 878.

Russell v. Lazar

300 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 27, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants argue that even if the complaint states claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … 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

White v. McKinley

519 F.3d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 26, 2008

Consequently, to be viable, White’s claim must allege bad faith to implicate a clearly established right under Brady. … Because Richard is asserting the qualified immunity defense, he has the burden to establish the relevant predicate facts for its application. He has not done so.

Intervarsity Christian Fellows v. University of Iowa

5 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

immunity because the law was not clearly established. … As for qualified immunity, the court denied the individual defendants qualified immunity on the free speech and association claims, finding that the law was clearly established that the University could not discriminate based

Jones v. Buckner

963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 2013

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … However, the Eleventh Circuit has “held time and again that clearly established general principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity.” Harbert Intern., Inc. v.

Hlubek v. Pelecky

701 N.W.2d 93 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 22, 2005

We quoted a Supreme Court case regarding qualified immunity and the philosophy underlying it: “[T]he qualified immunity defense ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does … not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known....’

Zwalesky v. Manistee County

749 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 16, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY All of the individual defendants that had contact with the decedent on the day of his death assert that they are immune from suit in the present action due to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Although qualified immunity is somewhat akin to an affirmative defense, the defendant does not bear the burden of establishing that his alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law. Dominque v.

United States Ex Rel. Vaughn v. United Biologics, L.L.C.

907 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2018

Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 290–94 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity was not waived on this basis). … But this principle of interpretation, known as the “Series-Qualifier Canon,” applies only when context clearly establishes that it is intended. Reading Law at 147–51.

Gary Mason v. Ricky Stallings, C.L. St. Clair, Jr., Charles Burkhalter, Harold Woodall, Phillip Jordan, All Individually

82 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1996

Judicially created qualified immunity enables a public official to avoid suit on an alleged constitutional or federal law violation where the law governing the claimed right was not clearly established at the time of the … The relevant question on a motion for summary judgment based on a defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and the

Simpson v. Hines

730 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 8, 1989

If a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant police officers would have known his or her use of force violated the clearly established law, it is objectively unreasonable. Graham v. … This court finds, taking the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, that a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant police officers, would have known that the actions taken in the jail cell violated clearly established

White v. Taylor

677 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 13, 1988

ground of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Cristo v. Evangelidis

90 Mass. App. Ct. 585 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 28, 2016

[Q]ualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional … the defendant's position would understand that his conduct violated those clearly established rights.

Clark v. Coleman

335 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 14, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Mullenix v. … Dec. 20, 2006) (holding that calling a police officer an "asshole" and an "Opie-Taylor-looking motherfucker" was protected speech, but finding qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in 2003).

Neil Morgan v. Fairfield Cty., Ohio

903 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The district court was correct to conclude that the law was not clearly established, so that the claims against the individual officers failed on qualified immunity grounds. … Specifically, the court held, qualified immunity was appropriate because even if intruding onto the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established that such an action was a violation at the time of

Wilson v. Strong

156 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1998

General Qualified Immunity Principles Qualified immunity shields a § 1983 defendant from liability for harms arising from her discretionary acts, so long as her acts do not violate any clearly established statutory … Second, "[i]n this circuit, the law can be "clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

(PC) Anderson v. Becerra

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2020

Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal on 25 immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim where the immunity defense 26 is clear on the face of the complaint); Washington … the face of the complaint, and 3 the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA[]”).

Shawn Manning v. C.J. Ryan

13 F.4th 705 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 20, 2021

Defendants moved for summary judgment claiming qualified immunity, arguing that Manning’s alleged right to see his children was not clearly established. … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Id.

Moore v. Miami-Dade County

502 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 18, 2007

in a constitutional violation of a clearly established right. … clearly established by case law or otherwise.

Patrick A. Dadd v. Anoka County

827 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2016

Anoka also rests its claim for qualified immunity on the argument that Dadd’s right to treatment in this particular situation was not clearly established, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Even if a complaint fairly alleges a violation of a constitutional right, an official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Cassady v. Yellowstone County Montana Sheriff Department

333 Mont. 371 · Montana Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2006

We now turn to the issue of whether the Officers’ failure to knock and announce was reasonable for purposes of determining qualified immunity. ¶42 b) Was the knock and announce rule clearly established in the context of the … Instead, the Court remanded to consider whether the law was clearly established in a more ‘“particularized sense’” to answer the question of qualified immunity. Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199 , 125 S.Ct. at 599 .