Case law

County of Adams v. Hibbard

20 Brief Times Rptr. 952 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 17, 1996

The qualified immunity defense should fail if the law was clearly established because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his [or her] conduct.” … called for the destruction of Garrison’s residence because, in their view, avoiding clearly established procedures would be cheaper.

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2016

Proposition D bans medical marijuana businesses, but grants certain qualifying businesses a limited immunity from enforcement of the ordinance. … As set forth in the Declarations attached to these moving papers, Progressive has resolved the LiveScan issue and now fully qualifies for limited immunity.

Keli Calderone v. City of Chicago

979 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 5, 2020

has not clearly established that right. … Qualified Immunity Public officials enjoy immunity from civil liability for con- duct that “[1] does not violate [2] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Dorwart v. Caraway

290 Mont. 196 · Montana Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1998

In other words, the plaintiffs have to prove a negative in order to establish that they had a right which the majority initially concedes is clearly established. ¶ 148 I also dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Brophy … The majority’s decision to affirm the dismissal of Brophy and Stillwater County is based on the same unsound conclusion on which its qualified immunity decision is based — i.e., that Dorwart had no clearly established right

Piper Partridge v. City of Benton, Arkansas

929 F.3d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2019

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome qualified immunity at the pleadings stage, a plaintiff must “plead[] facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Meyers v. Majkic

189 F. App'x 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2006

If a constitutional right may have been violated by the actions alleged, the defendant is only entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established. … A right is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his/her conduct was unlawful in the specific context of the case.

Shehee v. Luttrell

199 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1999

immunity, finding that the law regarding Shehee’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims was clearly established. … of clearly established law.”

Garcia v. Dutchess County

43 F. Supp. 3d 281 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 21, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” See id. at 1866 . … to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Chipman v. City of Florence

858 F. Supp. 87 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 2, 1994

ANALYSIS It is well-settled that government officials performing discretionary functions generally have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional … The court also stated: “To determine whether qualified immunity protects [the officers] we must inquire: 1) whether [the plaintiff] identified a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) whether a reasonable

Hearn v. Rhay

68 F.R.D. 574 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 1975

to plaintiff’s burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights. … Defendants argue that they seek immunity on the narrow basis of the extent of plaintiff’s “clearly established constitutional rights” at the time of the alleged civil rights violations and not on the basis of legal advice

Haavisto v. Perpich

498 N.W.2d 746 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 9, 1993

immunity grounds if they can show plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from the “cruel and unusual” conditions was not clearly established during the time he was incarcerated); Bogard, 586 F.2d at 409 (problem of … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 674-75.

Boyd v. District of Columbia

526 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2007

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Thus the right is not clearly established, and Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity from this claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

585 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2009

Plaintiff Chappell correctly points out that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is not based on a pure question of law, but on two clearly identified factual issues. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Dunn v. McFeeley

127 N.M. 513 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1999

The issue on appeal with respect to § 1983 is whether the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their alleged misconduct had not been “clearly established” in 1994 to be contrary to … Such a person, however, is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless at the time of the alleged misconduct it was “clearly established” that the misconduct violated federal law. See Yount v.

John Steven Thomas Olinger v. Dennis J. Larson City of Sioux of South Dakota Falls Terry Satterlee

134 F.3d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 1998

The district court dismissed Olinger’s entire action based upon a finding of qualified immunity for the arresting and supervising officers. Olinger timely appealed. We affirm. I. … The district court initially entered an order granting in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.

Morinville v. Old Colony Cooperative Bank

579 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 10, 1984

conduct not previously identified as unlawful____ If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … the rule could be deemed to not have been clearly established.

Francis Dougherty v. Philadelphia School District

772 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Having found a violation of Dougherty’s First Amendment rights, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine whether that right was “clearly established.”

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 .

Francis v. Coughlin

849 F.2d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 20, 1988

Defendants’ memorandum of law devoted nine pages to the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that the rights which plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established in the years 1982-83. … In its only reference to qualified immunity, the court noted in a footnote that a prisoner’s right to have notice of and to comment on charges against him was clearly established prior to 1982, such that qualified immunity

Estep v. Combs

366 F. Supp. 3d 863 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 2, 2018

"Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." Mitchell v. … of qualified immunity."