Case law

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.

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.”

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

Williams v. County of Sullivan

157 F.R.D. 6 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 26, 1994

the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Thus “until the threshold immunity question [of whether the law was clearly established at the time an action occurred] is resolved, discovery should not be allowed,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Newton v. City of New York

738 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 21, 2010

.” 57 The Second Circuit has held that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if “(1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the right … Clearly Established Constitutional Right Having determined that Ryan was conducting a discretionary function, the ensuing issue for qualified immunity purposes is whether she violated Newton’s clearly established constitutional

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.

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)

Soares v. Connecticut

8 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 1993

Accordingly, Konow is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. II. … can show that the rights plaintiff claims to have been violated were not “clearly established.”

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.'

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.

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.

Lowden v. County of Clare

709 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 25, 2010

Qualified immunity provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The court determined that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable officer in [the defendant’s] position would have known that Carey had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to

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.

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.").

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.”

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.

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.

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

Smith v. Schwarzenegger

137 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law.

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.