Case law

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.”

Angus v. Mayorkas

District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2022

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to argue that she was more qualified than J.C., the evidence is insufficient to establish pretext because it does not show that Plaintiff clearly was more qualified than J.C. … See Price, 283 F.3d at 723 (stating that to establish pretext, the losing candidate’s qualifications must “leap from the record and cry out to all who would listen that [s]he was vastly—or even clearly—more qualified for

Baxter v. Bracey

140 S. Ct. 1862 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 15, 2020

Applying our qualified immunity precedents, the Sixth Cir- cuit held that even if the officers’ conduct violated the Con- stitution, they were not liable because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right. … There likely is no basis for the objective inquiry into clearly established law that our modern cases prescribe.

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 .

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.

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,

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.”

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

Ronald Converse v. City of Kemah, Texas, et

961 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … Prong 2: Violation of Clearly Established Law The second part of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine “whether the [D]efendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established

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."

Carrigan v. State of Del.

957 F. Supp. 1376 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 18, 1997

In Anderson, the Supreme Court elaborated on the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … However, whether these broad constitutional principles are clearly established is not the appropriate inquiry under the qualified immunity standard.

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.

Michael J. Daugherty & Labmd, Inc. v. Sheer

891 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 2018

“Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation?” … The proponent of a purported right has the “burden to show that the particular right in question . . . was clearly established” for qualified-immunity purposes. Dukore v. Dist. of Columbia, 799 F.3d 1137, 1145 (D.C.

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

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

Brendle v. City of Houston, Miss.

177 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 2001

Qualified immunity shields state actors from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Davis v. … in light of the clearly established law.

Morse v. Fusto

804 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 11, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … We conclude that the right in question was clearly established such that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Regina Barton v. Chad Ledbetter

908 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2018

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … Conclusion We affirm the denial of qualified immunity as to Martin. We reverse the denial of qualified immunity as to Wright.

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.