Case law

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation Inc.

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts. … Without more involvement in the experiments, they did not violate any of Bibeau’s clearly established rights, and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Marshall v. Board of County Commissioners for Johnson County

912 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jan 22, 1996

in a qualified immunity case according to clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

Walker v. Davis

649 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2011

The district court held that Davis’s actions, so viewed, violated Germany’s clearly established constitutional rights, thereby precluding qualified immunity for Davis. We affirm. … But the facts, as we must view them, make out a violation of Germany’s clearly established constitutional rights. The district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed.

D'AOUST v. Diamond

424 Md. 549 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2012

qualified immunity. … The test clearly conflates the doctrines of absolute judicial immunity and qualified public official immunity.

Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger

807 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

The District Court granted summary judgment to . defendants on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the wiretap did not violate clearly established law since it had a rational nexus to national security. … We must determine whether the claims based on these requirements are subject to the qualified immunity defense. As to the warrant requirement, the answer is plain, since it was not yet clearly established.

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank

953 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

II A federal official’s assertion of qualified immunity based upon the plaintiff’s failure to state a “violation of clearly established law” is a question of law. Mitchell v. … It is true that “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Brady v.

Bamdad v. Drug Enforcement Administration

617 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 22, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit for damages unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we need not decide whether it was in fact violated, because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office

149 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 2002

The standards for establishing a prima facie case of negligence have been clearly established. The Court of Appeals stated in Bobo v. … Clearly, the Court would not have had to instruct the circuit court to make a qualified immunity determination absent a malice finding if no immunity existed for State constitutional torts. See Lee v.

Dickerson v. Mcclellan

101 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1996

Dickerson were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law regarding the knock and announce rule and its exceptions." … because they did not violate Dickerson's clearly established constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

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.”

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

Terri Vinyard v. Steve Wilson

311 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2002

be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” … the law applicable to particular circumstances clearly and to overcome qualified immunity even in the absence of case law.”)

Barr v. Abrams

641 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 7, 1986

But in any event, all his actions in his official capacity are protected by the qualified (or good faith) immunity which bars a damage action against him unless his conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional … But in any case, my ruling on the question of immunity does not turn on the correctness of Justice Sayah’s ruling. The question is rather whether there was “clearly established” law upholding Barr’s position.

Shain v. Ellison

53 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 1999

so as to preclude the Sheriff who established the county jail policy from invoking the defense of qualified immunity, Weber, 804 F.2d at 803 . … Qualified Immunity Defendants seek to invoke the defense of qualified immunity on behalf of the Nassau County Sheriff.

Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court

30 Cal. App. 4th 713 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

They dismiss defendants’ argument that the court failed to rule on their qualified immunity defense. … However, the qualified immunity under federal law upon which the defendants rely here does not apply if their actions violated a clearly established *731 statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should

Pisoni v. McCord

2018 Ohio 64 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2018

Thereafter, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish that the defendant’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in the defendant’s position would have clearly understood that he was under an … The question is whether Pisoni established McCord’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in McCord’s position (objectively measured) would have clearly understood he was under an affirmative

Michael Kopec v. Tyrone Tate, Officer Township of Whitemarsh

361 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 17, 2004

Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A defendant has the burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). The Supreme Court held in Saucier v.

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.

Rich v. Montpelier Supervisory District

167 Vt. 415 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 23, 1998

He misunderstands the role of the objective standard in qualified immunity analysis. … , on the basis of nothing more than the official’s pretextual assertions, that the allegedly unconstitutional conduct contravened no clearly established law.’”

Leodis Sledge, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Tanesha Leach, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and Heirs at Law v. City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, by and Through Its Mayor, Shirley Washington, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Pine Bluff City Council, by and Through Its Ex-Officio President, Shirley Washington, in Her Official Capacity; Rick Rhoden, in His Official Capacity as Director of Pine Bluff Street Department; And Kelvin Sargent, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Pine Bluff

2022 Ark. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 19, 2022

On appeal, Sledge argues (1) that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because his complaint sufficiently alleged violation of a clearly established statutory right; and … Because Sledge sued the public officials in their official capacities only, qualified immunity is not at issue.