Case law

Carl v. Angelone

883 F. Supp. 1433 · District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 19, 1995

Angelone’s instant motion for summary judgment argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the bfoq exception to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(l), is not clearly established. … Qualified immunity, a hybrid species of affirmative defense and immunity, places the initial burden on the plaintiff to prove that the right allegedly violated was clearly established. 3.

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

Fisher v. Dallas County

299 F.R.D. 527 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2014

“Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Wallace v. … See Morin, 77 F.3d at 120 (“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.”); Schultea, 47 F.3d at

Darlene M. Kesinger v. Thomas Herrington

381 F.3d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2004

Excessive Force & Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public actors from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … He did not violate the Constitution or any clearly established law. He is entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Bailey ex rel. K.A. v. Preston

702 F. App'x 210 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 13, 2017

The instant defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their use of force was “objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” 13 “[Wjhile the right to *213 be … Appellants' entire argument on this second prong of the qualified immunity test is that ‘it is clearly established in the law that citizens are protected against unjustified, excessive police force.'

Jared Clinton v. Ryan Garrett

49 F.4th 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 21, 2022

It does not require us to determine whether the defendants violated a “clearly established right” and, as it imposes a higher standard of care, it affords less protection than does qualified immunity. See Baldwin v. … We must still determine whether that right was clearly established.

Serra v. United States General Services Administration

664 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 1987

The standard is an objective one: “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ … Thus, for Diamond and Ink to be stripped of their qualified immunity from suit, it must have been clearly established at the time they acted that Serra possessed a cognizable constitutional liberty or property interest in

Mary Jo. Bradley v. Officer Casey Benton

10 F.4th 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.” Bailey v. … In other words, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time. See Helm, 989 F.3d at 1272.

Tompkins v. Vickers

26 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 1994

Even if the plaintiff's actions are constitutionally protected, public officials are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity unless the constitutional right asserted was clearly established at the time … Under Harlow, therefore, the focus of an inquiry into a defendant's qualified immunity is ordinarily the "objective reasonableness" of the official's discretionary conduct as measured by reference to clearly established

Prokop v. City of Los Angeles

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2007

—In Carroll, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 606 , the court held that a paved bicycle path qualifies as a “trail” under the immunity provisions of section 831.4. … We have already disposed of this argument: Government Code section 815, subdivision (b), clearly provides that the liability of a public entity established by “this part”—which includes the section 815.6 liability for failure

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.

State v. Haley

687 P.2d 305 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1984

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. … We do not believe that the law governing the constitutional issues in this case was so clearly established that Charney and Erickson should be denied official immunity.

Spooner v. Phoenix

246 Ariz. 119 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 27, 2018

To the extent these actions violate clearly established law or reflect a reckless disregard of Spooner’s rights, they are afforded no protection. … But to the extent Brown’s actions reflect the legitimate exercise of professional judgment, they are discretionary and protected by qualified immunity.

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.

Lesley v. Department of Social & Health Services

83 Wash. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 26, 1996

CASEWORKER AND STATE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We next address whether Maurer is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … To receive qualified immunity under section 1983, a state official performing discretionary functions must show that the official’s conduct "[did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

S.W. v. Clayton County Public Schools

185 F. Supp. 3d 1366 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 12, 2016

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Townsend or Jackson violated a clearly established constitutional right, meaning they are entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims. D.

PALMIERI VS. CLARK CO.

2015 NV 102 · Nevada Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information

Krout v. Goemmer

583 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 2009

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … That is the ‘clearly established’ law.

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

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.