Case law

Staats v. Brown

991 P.2d 615 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review Claims of qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 must fail if the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the act. Harlow v. … Consequently, he is qualifiedly immune for claims under state law. The test for qualified immunity under federal law is an objective one, measured by reference to clearly established law. See Harlow v.

Benckini v. Hawk

654 F. Supp. 2d 310 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2009

Under the defense of qualified immunity, “[gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the officer at that time, and must then determine

Robin Thompson v. James"Clint" Murray

800 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 2015

clearly established. … -6-  Murray is entitled to qualified immunity unless the above-described facts demonstrate that he violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of

Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged School District

239 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

To be sure, the Supreme Court has counseled that for qualified immunity to be inoperative, the right in question cannot be too abstract but rather must be "'clearly established' in a more particularized, and hence a more … " qualified immunity issue.

Harris v. Dugger

757 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 2, 1991

Qualified Immunity The Court next must consider the magistrate’s recommendation on the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. … A determination of whether an official violated clearly established law itself requires the Court to make two inquiries. First, the Court must ascertain the law that was “clearly established.”

Drolett v. DeMarco

382 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 16, 2010

by qualified immunity.” … Here, we move immediately to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. We therefore consider whether plaintiff’s rights were “clearly established” at the time defendants disciplined Drolett. In Garcetti v.

Belcher v. City of Foley

30 F.3d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1994

Thus, to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity, Mrs. … Belcher’s death no decision had clearly established that Chief Anderson’s actions or inactions constituted deliberate indifference, he is entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

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.

Donna L. Todd v. United States of America and R.S. Wintrode, Jr., District Director, Internal Revenue Service

849 F.2d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 10, 1988

Accordingly, we confine this analysis to the qualified immunity issue. Ill Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity presents a question of law. Mitchell v. … In such a case the defendant will be immune from suit. On the other hand, if a defendant has violated clearly established law, he will generally be liable.

Danese v. Asman

875 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 1989

The defendants contend that they should be dismissed as individual defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. We hold that the defendants are entitled to qualified^, immunity and therefore, reverse. … After the amendment, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 13, 2000

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Clark v. Ware

873 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Both Johnson and Ware raise the issue of qualified immunity. … immunity was still appropriate, however, because the law was not clearly established)).

David v. Mosley

915 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 16, 1996

Mosley’s Claim Of Qualified Immunity: Counts I, II And IY Mosley seeks summary judgment on Counts I, II and IV, on the theory that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 8 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law.

Johnson v. Waters

317 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 11, 2004

be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. Id.

Keck v. Eminisor

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 697 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

on the issue of qualified immunity.” … We analyzed “the nature of the rights involved,” concluding that immunity from suit involved in qualified immunity required that interlocutory review be available to an individual whose claim of qualified immunity was denied

Marcus Underwood v. City of Bessemer

11 F.4th 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2021

While we find that Underwood’s facts make out a constitutional violation, the Officers are still entitled to qualified immunity if the violation was not clearly established. Morton, 707 F.3d at 1282. B. … Was the Right Clearly Established?

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.

Maurice Hardaway v. Brett Meyerhoff

734 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2013

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officers from liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

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.’”

Ramon A. Mercado v. City of Orlando

407 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 2005

Whether Padilla Violated Clearly Established Law. … Even though Padilla violated Mercado’s constitutional rights, he could still be afforded qualified immunity provided that Mercado’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.