Case law

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

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.

Duffie v. Wichita County

990 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2013

immunity analysis and asks whether, nevertheless, qualified immunity is appropriate because the Officer Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable “in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question … As already stated, qualified immunity is a defense available to public officials performing discretionary functions “... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

O'MALLEY v. City of Flint

652 F.3d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2011

Generally, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper if the officer was not on notice that his conduct was clearly unlawful. Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 876 (6th Cir.2002). … established”).

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.

Heidemann v. Rother

84 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 23, 1996

For reversal, all of the defendants, including Joy, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any clearly established constitutional or federal … In Behrens , the defendant, an official with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, had moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his actions had not violated any clearly established right.

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.

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.

Lockett v. New Orleans City

607 F.3d 992 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 5, 2010

If the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, then qualified immunity is not applicable. … Nonetheless, the district court granted the defendants qualified immunity because it found that Lockett did not satisfy the second prong, which requires that the constitutional right was clearly established.

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.

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

Whittier v. Kobayashi

581 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test; he must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Edmiston v. Borrego

75 F.4th 551 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. … Regarding the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, for a right to be “clearly established” it must be “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates

Laubinger v. Department of Revenue

41 Mass. App. Ct. 598 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 14, 1996

Whether an asserted right was clearly established at a particular time so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity “presents a question of law” which “must be resolved de novo on appeal … Accordingly, we hold Fay is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Barnes v. Furman

629 F. App'x 52 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages “if his conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe … Defendants do not dispute that the confiscation of Barnes’s Tsalot-Kob religious head covering was unlawful and instead argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law permitting

Jo Anne Allison v. Dept. of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was `clearly established'"). … The clearly established law of Simon is relevant to determining whether the defendants acted reasonably at the time of Allison's discharge (the issue in this limited qualified immunity appeal), but will control the merits

Angie Waller v. City of Fort Worth Texas, e

922 F.3d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2019

These acts, the district court explained, violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established rights to access the courts. … “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Brown v. City of Oneonta, NY

858 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 18, 1994

Wilson and Hunt claim that the court applied the qualified immunity test improperly and assert that they cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless it was clearly established that an exception to FERPA did not apply … Yet, even if the rights in question are clearly established, a government actor may still be shielded by qualified immunity if “it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate

Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez v. Reno, Meissner, Holder, Mills, INS Agent

325 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … It is therefore appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”