Case law

Liska v. Dart

60 F. Supp. 3d 889 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 2014

“The 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 person … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, a court considers “(1) whether the plaintiffs allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at

Mich. Interlock, LLC v. Alcohol Detection Sys., LLC

360 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 27, 2018

Qualified immunity "shield[s]" public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In other words, Secretary Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity in her personal capacity because, at the time of the Order, it was not clearly established that she might violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Young v. County of Fulton

999 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 6, 1998

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established right of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendants Pape, Lockwood, Johannes, and Hasenfuss, are therefore immune from liability under qualified immunity doctrine.

Fierro v. City of New York

341 F. App'x 696 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Pataki, 196 F.3d 56 , 66 (2d Cir.1999) (indicating that if a constitutional protection is not clearly established at the time of an official’s alleged conduct, the official will be protected by qualified immunity even if

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

Paul Tarashuk v. Jamie Givens

53 F.4th 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 8, 2022

of material fact barred a ruling on qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. … Appellants also argued, in the alternative, that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the particular right allegedly violated was not clearly established.

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal “rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Thomas A. Munz v. Tobin Michael, Deputy U.S. Marshal Kirk Papenthien, Deputy U.S. Marshal, David R. Hansen, U.S. District Judge

28 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

Second, defendants argue that *798 the district court improperly denied their qualified immunity defense because Munz’s allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation of a constitutional right clearly established … “This court has ... taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry....” Boswell v.

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey and Jerry Howard, Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey Steve Vincent

932 F.2d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 1991

This court also held that Vincent and Mackey were not entitled to qualified immunity because they knowingly acted outside the scope of their employment and violated a clearly established due process right. … Qualified Immunity In Merritt I , this court held that neither Vincent nor Mackey was entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly

Robinson v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 34 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity from suit must be granted when the law or right allegedly violated is not clearly established. Conner v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 , 1492 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

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.

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,

Nash v. Douglas County

733 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 17, 1989

Qualified Immunity Harper, Hale, Copeland and Holmes, (“the law officer defendants”), assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … The qualified immunity defense, first recognized by the Supreme court in Pierson v.

Armijo Ex Rel. Chavez v. Wagon Mound Public Schools

159 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 28, 1998

“Such immunity is qualified in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … that the relevant law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Angela Bouggess v. McKenzie Mattingly

482 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

The Supreme Court has held that defendants in such suits are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In other words, an officer will be denied qualified immunity if he violates a statutory or constitutional right that was “so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured

Brown v. Grabowski

922 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 31, 1990

Anderson’s strict elaboration of Harlow , establishing that an official is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, unless the right that the official is alleged to have violated is both clearly established … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Hardy v. District of Columbia

601 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right,” and “whether *188 that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.”

Foley v. University of Houston System

324 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. Harlow v. … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appel-lees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.