Case law

McMillian v. Johnson

878 F. Supp. 1473 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 17, 1995

Additionally, Tate argues that he is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because he did not deprive McMillian of clearly established federal right. … in conduct which violates clearly established law, then qualified immunity does not afford the defendant protection from the claim.

Hays v. Ellis

331 F. Supp. 2d 1303 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 23, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Having so concluded, the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

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

Jeffers v. Gomez

267 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2001

The availability of qualified immunity in such a case naturally turns on whether it' was “clearly established law” that Motive Y was impermissible. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Marcus Hanks v. Randall Rogers

853 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. … App’x 453, 459–60 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (construing Deville as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he “quickly escalate[s]” an encounter with a non-threatening, passively-resisting

Haavisto v. Perpich

498 N.W.2d 746 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 9, 1993

immunity grounds if they can show plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from the “cruel and unusual” conditions was not clearly established during the time he was incarcerated); Bogard, 586 F.2d at 409 (problem of … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 674-75.

Howell v. Evans

922 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 1991

Absent from the order was any discussion of what the clearly established law was at the time of Howell’s death, an inquiry essential to a determination of immunity. … Generally Applicable Law As stated above, Harlow established the test for qualified immunity.

Dollard v. Callery

185 A.3d 694 · Superior Court of Delaware · Apr 16, 2018

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”63 A clearly … right to fair trial—that clearly was established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Alexander v. County of Los Angeles

64 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 1995

under the clearly established principles of law governing that conduct. … Under this approach, we find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Nolen v. Jackson

102 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right.... … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (holding threshold question in a qualified immunity claim is whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right has occurred);

Adams v. NaphCare, Inc.

246 F. Supp. 3d 1128 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 31, 2017

As the Magistrate Judge noted, state actors are entitled to qualified immunity from such claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … immunity, since it was not clearly established that the agency head bore such responsibility for her subordinates.”

Tarpley v. Miami-Dade County

212 F. Supp. 3d 1273 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 21, 2016

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … City of Cumming, 69 F.3d 1098, 1102 (11th Cir.1995) (“Should the plaintiff fail to show that the law was clearly established at the time in question, the individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.”).

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

6 of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Thus, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Mosby v. Moore

716 So. 2d 551 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1998

Alternatively, their basis for the motion was that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claims. … He also ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. 1. Official Capacity ¶ 30.

Halperin v. Kissinger

578 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 1984

The doctrine *234 of qualified immunity now focuses on whether a government official's conduct "violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … judgment based on qualified immunity.

Juide v. City of Ann Arbor

839 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 15, 1993

They also assert the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that it was not clearly established law at the time of their alleged violation of Juide’s constitutional rights that (1) due process prohibited the issuance of a … In the absence of clearly established law which would preclude an in rem forfeiture proceeding if the privilege against self-incrimination is implicated to any degree, Markman and Best are entitled to .qualified immunity

Patrick Devlin v. Richard Kalm

531 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2013

In order to overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, Devlin must show that the defendants (1) violated his constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time … “Clearly established” rights must be defined at an “appropriate level of generality” to avoid “collapsing the two qualified- immunity inquiries into one” without being so narrow that no violation can ever be found.

Terry A. Veney v. Michael Hogan Carol Hernandez Frank D. Fleischer and Martha Knicely

70 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

For a law to be “clearly established” in the context 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 that right. … The trial court need not deny a defendant the right to qualified immunity simply because a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.

Sheehy v. State

250 Mont. 437 · Montana Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1991

Plaintiffs argue that the result in Davis was clearly foreshadowed under the long-standing principle of intergovernmental tax immunity and as a logical extension of the Court’s decisions in a series of cases. … The second extension of prior law took place when the Court *443 established the connection between the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity and the protection against discriminatory taxation of individuals under 4