Case law

Montez v. Romer

32 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 21, 1999

Further, defendants contend that the individual defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that either the … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory

Thrower v. Pennsylvania

873 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2012

Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity does not apply because Decedent’s rights were clearly established at the time the Individual Defendants acted, even if it was uncertain at that time whether their actions would subject … Instantly, Defendants’ contention that it was not clearly established law that certain portions of the Medicaid Act create individually enforceable rights misses the qualified immunity mark.

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.

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

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.

Earles v. Perkins

788 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded 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 … have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of the clearly-established law and the information that the arresting officer possessed"). 9 The Appellants also assert that Earles and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity

Pinder v. Skero

375 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2019

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The Fifth Circuit has explained the "clearly established" prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be "on notice that

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).

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.

Hoffman v. Kelz

443 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 3, 2006

Finally, defendant Kelz is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time because plaintiff has alleged facts suggesting that defendant Kelz’s conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights. … that would clearly establish his constitutional rights.

Brad Livingston, Robert Treon, Martha Wear and Paul Morales v. Atiba Ramone Taylor, Tdcj 1082601

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 6, 2009

Qualified Immunity (5) Qualified immunity shields a government official "performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official's conduct does not violate clearly established … When a government official pleads qualified immunity, the summary judgment burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence which establishes that the official's conduct violated the clearly established law. Newman v.

Stutzman v. Krenik

350 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 10, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Stutzman has alleged facts that state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, the Court will not dismiss the claim at this stage based on the defense of qualified immunity. B.

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

Collar v. Austin

86 F. Supp. 3d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 5, 2015

immunity, the Court is required, sua sponte, to determine whether the allegations of the complaint reflect the violation of a clearly established right. … circumstances as denials of qualified immunity.

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.

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 1987

In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, our determination is limited to the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged support a violation of clearly established law: An appellate court … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Robert Andrews v. Hickman County, Tennessee

700 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Thus, qualified immunity applies “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (citing Anderson v. … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires us to ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct.