Case law

Harris v. Huston

53 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 21, 1999

The defendant has submitted a Rule 50 motion based on the defense of qualified immunity. The defendant argues that Mr. … I reserved ruling on the defendant’s qualified immunity motion partly because the defendant’s tardiness in raising the qualified immunity defense had effectively defeated its goal of sparing a public employee the cost of

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

930 F.3d 746 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 23, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that (1) there was a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s conduct. … Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a clearly established substantive due process right on the facts they allege.

Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 10, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … The “clearly established law” and “objective reasonableness” facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the “clearly established law” itself contains a subjective component.

Walter v. Morton

33 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1994

the claim of qualified immunity. … If he was discharged in retaliation to his report, this would constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Rogers v. Cofield

908 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 2012

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MARIANNE B. BOWLER, United States Magistrate Judge. … was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Leodis Sledge, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Tanesha Leach, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and Heirs at Law v. City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, by and Through Its Mayor, Shirley Washington, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Pine Bluff City Council, by and Through Its Ex-Officio President, Shirley Washington, in Her Official Capacity; Rick Rhoden, in His Official Capacity as Director of Pine Bluff Street Department; And Kelvin Sargent, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Pine Bluff

2022 Ark. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 19, 2022

On appeal, Sledge argues (1) that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because his complaint sufficiently alleged violation of a clearly established statutory right; and … Because Sledge sued the public officials in their official capacities only, qualified immunity is not at issue.

Terri Vinyard v. Steve Wilson

311 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2002

be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” … the law applicable to particular circumstances clearly and to overcome qualified immunity even in the absence of case law.”)

Thoma v. Hickel

947 P.2d 816 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1997

Qualified immunity under federal law protects officials except where it is “clearly established” as of the time of the acts complained of that the acts violated the plaintiffs rights. … If the plaintiffs allegations fail to establish a constitutional claim, the defendant is entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, or, of course, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

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.

Hutchins v. Peterson

139 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 14, 2001

Qualified immunity as to federal claims Movants’ second argument, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Hutchins’ rights were not clearly established, is similarly without merit. 11 “The doctrine of qualified … “Without a doubt, the right not to be arrested without probable cause is clearly established” for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Samuel L. Pfannstiel v. City of Marion, Doyle Elliot and James A. Pearce, Mike Earl, Harvey Faulkner and Waldon Boecker, Etc.

918 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 12, 1990

When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, “whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law” is an “essentially legal question.” … Unit A Jan.1981) was clearly established law.

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.

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.

Bailey v. Iles

87 F.4th 275 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 21, 2023

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

Watkins v. Mitchem

50 So. 3d 485 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 7, 2010

“An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do ‘ “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … ’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

T.R. v. Lamar County Board of Education, The

25 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2022

“A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistin- guishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within … Since the Defendants’ actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, we conclude that the Defendants are not enti- tled to qualified immunity.

Giebel v. Sylvester

244 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

was not clearly established at the time of Sylvester’s actions. … not entitled to qualified immunity.

López-Ramos v. Municipality of Cataño

556 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2008

The sec ond inquiry is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Rather, it makes the blanket and general assertion that its officers are entitled to immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. 1.

Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., & Pedro Olivares

58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 678 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2015

Brown & Gay’s reliance on Filar-sky's qualified-immunity analysis is misplaced. … The federal 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

Mathis v. Bess

763 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their personal capacities from liability for discretionary acts provided their conduct did not violate any “clearly established” federal statutory or … Benjamin, a single unpublished decision of a lower court, “clearly established” the law of this circuit for purposes of qualified immunity. See Hawkins v. Steingut, 829 F.2d 317, 321 (2d Cir.1987).