Case law

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.

Blue v. Koren

865 F. Supp. 169 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 13, 1994

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity must be addressed first, because if Defendants are immune we do not need to assess Plaintiffs substantive claims. … These three cases are not clearly instructive on the qualified immunity standard to be applied in a retaliation case.

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.

Azucena Zamorano Aleman v. City of Charlotte

80 F.4th 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

As the district court recognized, the qualified immunity analysis consists of two prongs: (1) whether a statutory or constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at … Nevertheless, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Wilson v.

Jorden Brown v. Samuel Giles

95 F.4th 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2024

Officer Giles argues he’s entitled to qualified immunity. To overcome that immunity, Brown must show it’s clearly established that tasing him in this particular context was excessive. See Pearson v. … Qualified immunity demands no such thing. Regardless, the relevant law is clearly established here.

Zeigler v. Kirschner

162 Ariz. 77 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 5, 1989

Additionally, the defense of qualified immunity based on an official’s objectively reasonable reliance on clearly established law is a personal one which is entirely unavailable to him in an action against him in his official … immunities established by A.R.S. §§ 12-820.01 and 12-820.02, respectively.

Redo v. Sylvestri

690 So. 2d 731 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 2, 1997

The trial court granted the officers' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … If Redo proves her allegations, then the officers are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, since their conduct violated clearly established constitutional law. See Harlow v.

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,

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

Good v. Curtis

601 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2010

immunity defense if he procures false identification by unlawful means . . . for such activity violates clearly established constitutional principles.” 849 F.2d at 1559. … in light of clearly established law.”

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.

L.R. v. Philadelphia School District

836 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 2016

, however, when public officials violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a concerns only the District Court’s denial of Littlejohn’s claim of qualified immunity. 6 Mitchell v. … “Even if none exists, it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Court[s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”60 Defining the right

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

Flick v. Larue

608 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 20, 1985

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, that official can defeat a constitutional tort claim by interposing the qualified immunity defense. … unless the constitutional right he was alleged to have violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

Coates v. Powell

650 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 1, 2009

Qualified Immunity Generally “Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law … Thus, “a state official is protected by qualified *938 immunity from a section 1983 claim unless [the] alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person in

Reyes v. Fischer

934 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 9, 2019

violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are afforded qualified immunity, and are therefore "shielded from liability for civil damages" when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

580 N.W.2d 606 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1998

“To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time.” Id. … ” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. ****** [0]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly

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.

Deborah Audra Skousen v. Brighton High School, Paul Rambo, a Michigan State Trooper

305 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 26, 2002

We do, however, retain jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, which requires a determination of whether a given set of facts violates a clearly established right. Mat-tox, 183 F.3d at 519 . … all, and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established, before proceeding to the qualified immunity question).