Case law

Nita Gordon v. Keith Bierenga

20 F.4th 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2021

Under the familiar test for qualified immunity, a public official is immune from suit unless the plaintiff establishes: (1) a constitutional violation; and (2) that the right at issue was “clearly established” when the event … Even when a defendant violates a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the right at issue was “clearly established[.]” Id. (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232).

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.

Bistrian v. Levi

299 F. Supp. 3d 686 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2018

established. 107 The failure of either prong will result in the official being entitled to qualified immunity. 108 Here, Plaintiff has not shown that he had a clearly established right to be removed from the SHU within the … was clearly established.

Gabriel Coker v. Arkansas State Police

734 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 5, 2013

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability "unless his conduct violates 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … the defendant violated a clearly established right."

Moore v. Hayman

67 Ohio App. 3d 184 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1990

principle purposes for the adoption of the qualified immunity standard as articulated in Harlow, supra. … Due to the fact that no clearly established constitutionalrightwas violated, therefore shielding the appellees with qualified immunity, appellants' issues two (2), three (3) and four (4) become irrelevant.

Sullivan v. Sumrall by Ritchey

618 So. 2d 1274 · Mississippi Supreme Court · May 13, 1993

Bobbie Sullivan raised the defense of qualified immunity and/or absolute immunity pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-13-11 , et seq. (Supp. 1991). … . § 41-13-11 (Supp. 1991), which provides immunity for community hospitals established pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-13-15 (Supp. 1991).

Aho v. Anthony

782 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 28, 2011

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known … See Musso, 836 F.2d at 743-44 (stating that, in a qualified immunity inquiry, the appropriate question is whether it was “clearly established” that the defendant had an affirmative duty to prevent others from infringing on

Better Government Bureau, Inc. v. McGraw

904 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 16, 1995

This is so because there is no requirement that the ‘exact right allegedly violated’ be previously ‘specifically recognized by a court’ in order for it [to] be held ‘ “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … established” for qualified immunity purposes, but is also perhaps one of the more well-settled principles of constitutional jurisprudence.

Shechter v. Comptroller of New York

79 F.3d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 1996

It is not enough that defendants-appellants were “government officials” to establish qualified immunity. … Accordingly, defendants-appellants’ pleading is insufficient to establish their qualified immunity defense.

Jensen v. Jessamy

242 N.C. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2015

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … "In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Daniel Robbins v. City of Des Moines

984 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 5, 2021

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, Robbins must demonstrate (1) a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. Id. … The defendant officers violated Robbins’s clearly established right to be free of unreasonable seizures of his property, see id., and are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Reed v. Taylor

923 F.3d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 2019

The district court granted summary judgment to the officials based on qualified immunity, holding that the threat of criminal prosecution wasn't "other legal process" under clearly established law. Reed appealed. … "The doctrine of 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.'

Burt v. Carlson

752 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 1990

There are two kinds of immunity. One is absolute immunity, and the other is qualified or good-faith immunity. … Under 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

James F. Robinson v. Solano County Brian Cauwells, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer Gary Faulkner, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer

278 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2002

established in this circuit in 1995 to override the officers’ claim of qualified immunity. … Conclusion We hold that Officers Cauwells and Faulkner were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal excessive force claim because the Fourth Amendment law gov *1017 erning their conduct was not clearly established at

In Re: Montgomery County

215 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2000

clearly established right which the Appellants violated and therefore denied them the protection of qualified immunity." … Holding as we do that Wright has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, we must also hold that the Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. IV.

Buchanan v. Ford

638 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 19, 1986

If an official establishes “the objective reasonableness of [his] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” he can have summary judgment. Id. … Plaintiff has not cited a different “clearly established” legal standard by which to evaluate defendant’s conduct.

LaChance v. Town of Charlton

990 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 3, 2021

Of course, prior cases with materially similar facts are not necessary to clearly establish conduct's illegality; a "general constitutional rule" located in prior authority can suffice to defeat qualified immunity even … (alteration in district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.").

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Sain v. Wood

512 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

Wood moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied his summary judgment motion, and Dr. Wood appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … Wood had disqualified himself from immunity by violating a clearly established constitutional right. Because the issue of Dr.

Roger Lee v. William Driscoll

871 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 7, 2017

“We review de novo the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.” Id. at 813 . … a constitutional right’; and (2) whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.”