Case law

Vernon Linicomn v. City of Dallas

902 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can plead specific allegations demonstrating (1) the violation of a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of the alleged … immunity analysis, that this right was clearly established under the circumstances of this case at the time of the officers’ entry.

Maxwell v. MAYOR & ALDER. OF SAVANNAH

226 Ga. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 5, 1997

Despite this finding, however, we conclude that Gellatly was immune from the § 1983 claim in this case. Gellatly’s qualified immunity defense is governed by federal law. Forney v. Purvis, 190 Ga. … For the law to be *708 clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable

Nicholas C. Wade v. Solomon Daniels

36 F.4th 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2022

medical needs—which, as addressed in the following sections, he cannot—qualified immunity applies because Wade failed to show that the defendants violated clearly established law. … Because there is no clearly established law that placed Investigators Daniels, Jones, and Wilson on notice that their actions violated Wade’s constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s medical

Cox v. Maine State Police

391 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 3, 2004

In that way, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from civil -7- liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In short, -10- to set aside the buckler of qualified immunity "the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized,

Hanrahan v. Doling

331 F.3d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 30, 2003

In evaluating whether a right is clearly established for purposes of the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the court looks to both “the clarity of the law establishing the right allegedly violated” as well as … We note that the extent to which district court decisions may be taken into account in evaluating whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes is far from clear. See Anderson v.

Benjamin v. Schwartz

299 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 8, 2004

Koenigsmann, and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is available to a public official whose conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Toevs v. Reid

685 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 2, 2012

Our conclusion that defendants are entitled to judgment on the “clearly established” portion of the qualified-immunity test obviates any need to remand this case. … Because the law was not clearly established, defendants are entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity. C.

Chinchello v. Fenton

805 F.2d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1986

We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an “I didn’t do it” defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear cut as in most other contexts … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established ... statutory rights” and, based on Davis v.

Robert Oglesby v. Amy Lesan

929 F.3d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2019

Officer Hein and Deputy Lesan moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated his clearly-established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Deary v. Evans

570 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Jun 6, 1983

The Court in Saldana outlined the procedures necessary to establish the defense of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment. … The burden of persuasion then shifts to the plaintiff who must rebut the good faith or qualified immunity defense by showing that the defendant’s conduct violates clearly established law.

Kelley v. O'Malley

328 F. Supp. 3d 447 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2018

Qualified immunity then attaches "when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. … s clearly established constitutional rights and they are entitled to qualified immunity. 8 Plaintiffs also include in Count I claims against John Does # 1 and # 2 for excessive force.

MacKey v. Cleveland State University

837 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 1993

Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must produce additional facts or allegations demonstrating that his constitutional rights were violated and “that these rights were so clearly established … Qualified immunity is available to the Trustees, Flower, Muczyk, and Konstantinos in their individual capacities since their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Rozek v. Topolnicki

865 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

The court held that defendants Reisdorff and Liddle were entitled to qualified immunity because they were working under To-polnicki’s direction, and that Rozek had not shown they had violated any clearly established constitutional … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Washington v. Buraker

322 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 2, 2004

If the answer to that threshold question is yes, the officer is may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the events at issue. Clem v. … Because discovery is not yet complete, this Court must deny Defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity if it concludes “(1) that the plaintiff alleged a violation of a clearly established right,

Derrick Newman v. James Guedry

703 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

and on the § 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The officers maintain that their conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Hernandez v. Skinner

383 F. Supp. 3d 1077 · District Court, D. Montana · May 29, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit unless the plaintiff can show (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … "Qualified immunity is no immunity at all 'if clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." City & Cty. Of S.F. v.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Gloria Bustillos

556 S.W.3d 394 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jun 13, 2018

First, the federal court’s ruling was based on “qualified immunity” which evaluates whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time. … (recognizing that the terms “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used interchangeably, but that the doctrines are separate defenses; qualified immunity applies when federal law claims are raised while

Baker v. Coburn

68 F.4th 240 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 17, 2023

violated clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established stat- utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

13 P.3d 631 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken." … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers' actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

Bartell v. Lohiser

12 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 1, 1998

whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated a clearly established right of which they should have known. 4