Case law

Murray v. Poani

980 N.E.2d 1275 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 14, 2012

Qualified Immunity ¶ 33 Defendants contend if we conclude the trial court erred in determining no issue of material fact exists, we should hold plaintiffs’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. ¶ 34 … the constitutional right was clearly established.

William Evans, Jr. v. Brian Krook

106 F.4th 790 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2024

Krook moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In this interlocutory appeal, Krook challenges the order denying qualified immunity.

Rodriquez v. Furtado

771 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 11, 1991

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has recently interpreted these holdings to establish a two-part objective test for qualified immunity claims: First, if the right asserted by the plaintiff was “clearly established … Therefore, Detective Furtado is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in his position would not have known he was violating any clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiff. 2.

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2004

A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. (Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 201.) … The high court explained that “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his- conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” (Ibid.)

Shepard v. Hansford County

110 F. Supp. 3d 696 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 22, 2015

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is a doctrine designed to protect government officials sued in their individual capacity from liability for civil damages, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … If a defendant successfully establishes the qualified immunity defense, he or she is completely immune from suit. See id.

Livingston Manners v. Officer Ronald Cannella

891 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2018

As for the officers, they were entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … Qualified immunity is appropriate if the officers’ conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hill v.

Butler v. Dowling

750 So. 2d 674 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 22, 1999

There, the court held that the failure to loosen tight handcuffs did not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation. … Dowling's version of the facts, if proven, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Redo v. Sylvestri, 690 So.2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

James v. Rowlands

606 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 2010

We conclude that, even if such rights existed, they were not clearly established. We therefore affirm the grant of qualified immunity on these two claims. … We conclude, however, that James’s right to this information was not clearly established and that the offi- cials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

CYBER ZONE E-CAFE, INC. v. King

782 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 22, 2011

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the law was not clearly established in April 2010 that the Plaintiffs’ arrest and seizure was unlawful, Defendant King is entitled to qualified immunity, and all claims against him in his individual capacity shall

Gene Flinn v. Elaine Gordon, Dexter Lehtinen

775 F.2d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Once this is established, the official is immune from liability unless the plaintiff can “prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.” Id. … Since Flinn cannot show the loss of any federal right, much less the loss of a “clearly established” right, he has failed to overcome Gordon’s qualified immunity.

Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson

999 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 1998

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Reynolds violated the Lucases clearly established rights in moving to revoke their probation.

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

341 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Johnson v. Boreani

946 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Because in most cases it is easier for a § 1983 defendant to establish qualified immunity than to defend against the alleged constitutional violation, and because our remand had expressly left the qualified immunity issue

Baptie v. Bruno and McNeil

195 Vt. 308 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Dec 6, 2013

We first address the superior court’s ruling that defendant is entitled to qualified official immunity under, the circumstances of this case. * “Qualified immunity attaches to public officials who are (1) acting during the … An objective person in defendant’s position could not have believed that his conduct violated clearly established law. ¶ 16.

Willingham v. Crooke

412 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

This is known as the defense of qualified immunity. Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, *558 Ms. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Alex LL. v. Department of Social Services

60 A.D.3d 199 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 22, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages when performing discretionary duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … “The qualified immunity standard gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

Ross v. Early

899 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2012

Thus, if the right was not clearly established, for example, Officer Early would be entitled to qualified immunity without an assessment of the first prong. … Determination of a violation of constitutional rights is no longer a predicate for assessing qualified immunity; a court may first address whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

William C. Powell v. Thomas J. Mikulecky, George Oates, Ruth Stephens and Wendall Gilliam

891 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity as a defense to an action, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”

Daren Green v. Heidi Lutz

679 F. App'x 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2017

Two Department employees, Heidi Lutz and Dorothy Filson, cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Cty. of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 788 (9th Cir. 2016) (reiterating the two-prong analysis in qualified immunity cases: (1) whether the official’s conducted violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was “clearly

Peltier v. Sacks

328 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2018

was not clearly established. 4 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, whether the "right at issue was 'clearly established