Case law

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

Harrod v. Caney

547 S.W.3d 536 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 23, 2018

Harrod filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing the claims against him are barred by absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Coroners are entitled to qualified immunity both by statute and pursuant to common law.

Elkins v. McKenzie

865 So. 2d 1065 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2003

The first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional (or federal statutory) right. Hare v. … To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality. Anderson v.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.