Case law

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

Brodie v. Worthington

841 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2012

’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials in civil litigation arising from their official conduct ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Ken Mouille, Laurie Rollins v. City of Live Oak

918 F.2d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 8, 1991

Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law. … Unit A Jan. 1981) were clearly established law in this circuit.

Hardy v. District of Columbia

601 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right,” and “whether *188 that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.”

Azucena Zamorano Aleman v. City of Charlotte

80 F.4th 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

As the district court recognized, the qualified immunity analysis consists of two prongs: (1) whether a statutory or constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at … Nevertheless, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Wilson v.

John W. Burgess Linda M. Burgess, Husband and Wife v. Pierce County, a Municipal Corporation Joseph Stortini Jane "Doe" Stortini, Husband and Wife

918 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 1990

The scope of our review is detailed in Mitchell : Unless 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 … “[S]tate and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if ‘their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Manhattan Beach

Ronald A. Mahers v. Charles Harper Ken Wittry Ronald Welder Paul W. Grossheim

12 F.3d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 1, 1994

Defendants argue that even if the due process violation found by the state court is taken as a given, the right violated was not clearly established, and therefore they are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … In proceeding under Rule 9, defendants acted in an objectively reasonable manner, and they'did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. They are entitled to qualified immunity.

AHE Realty Assoc., LLC v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

320 F. Supp. 3d 1322 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 2018

Qualified Immunity Naranjo also states he is entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal "unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law." Cottone v. Jenne , 326 F.3d 1352 , 1357 (11th Cir. 2003).

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.

Knight v. Trotter

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 5, 2023

Since Hughes acknowledges that Knight possessed a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessively forceful handcuffing, qualified immunity does not preclude him from standing … Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that the “right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes”).

David Sims v. City of Madisonville

894 F.3d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 2018

That is because of the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry, which requires a plaintiff to show that any violation of rights was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. 4 When Sims was terminated in … established when Sims was fired in 2012, and Covington was entitled to qualified immunity.

Lachance v. Town of Charlton, Corp.

368 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … Thus, because Defendants do not argue they are entitled to qualified immunity for the common law claims, this Court need not address the existence of state qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Anhorn

416 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2006

The law became clearly established when the Third Circúit considered the issue of qualified immunity under similar circumstances in Rogers v. … Thus, because the right in question is clearly established, Anhorn must also be denied qualified immunity as to the final plaintiff, Johnson. d.

Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

580 N.W.2d 606 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1998

“To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time.” Id. … ” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. ****** [0]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly

West Virginia of Corrections v. Tracy Jividen

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2015

The WVDOC argues that the circuit court’s reason for denying summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity is clearly erroneous and is flawed in several major respects. … “[T]he doctrine of qualified or official immunity bars a claim of mere negligence against a State agency . . . and WVDOC’s argument that qualified immunity shields the WVDOC from the Plaintiff’s claim should

Robinson v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 34 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity from suit must be granted when the law or right allegedly violated is not clearly established. Conner v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 , 1492 (9th Cir. 1990).

Reyes v. Fischer

934 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 9, 2019

violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are afforded qualified immunity, and are therefore "shielded from liability for civil damages" when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp. of America v. Kentucky, Finance & Administration Cabinet

403 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · May 10, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … If the law was not clearly established, the defendants may be protected from suit by qualified immunity as they could not have known that their conduct was illegal or unconstitutional.

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

Kevin O'ROuRke v. Smithsonian Institution Press and the Smithsonian Institution, Docket No. 04-0151-Cv

399 F.3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 16, 2005

O’Rourke pointed out that the Smithsonian was created as an independent establishment of the United States, citing 20 U.S.C. *116 § 41, and that § 1498(b) does not mention establishments, or trust instrumentalities, of the … Prior to 1960, however, the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity from suits for copyright infringement, and the result was, “inequitabl[y],” that government employees — who could not claim sovereign immunity