Case law

Buchanan v. Metz

132 F. Supp. 3d 922 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 14, 2015

violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

Hubbard v. Board of Education

19 Kan. App. 2d 853 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jun 24, 1994

In this case, the defendants argue they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court correctly held the Board had not violated a clearly established law and was entitled to qualified immunity for its actions.

Ralston v. Cannon

884 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. … Procedural Background Cannon filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. 2 He asserted that to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Ralston “must show that his

Troy Rokusek v. Cody Jansen

899 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2018

To overcome Trooper Jansen’s claim of qualified immunity, Rokusek must show the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Gilmore v. … We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Walter v. Morton

33 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1994

the claim of qualified immunity. … If he was discharged in retaliation to his report, this would constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County

916 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2019

alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ and second, ‘whether the right was clearly established.’” … The majority has correctly concluded that Officer Hinds is entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established law.

López-Ramos v. Municipality of Cataño

556 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2008

The sec ond inquiry is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Rather, it makes the blanket and general assertion that its officers are entitled to immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. 1.

Kaufhold v. Bright

835 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 1993

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for money damages when their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known … To analyze a claim of qualified immunity, a court should: (1) identify the specific constitutional right implicated; (2) determine that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) consider

Braswell v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

369 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 26, 2005

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1377 stitutional rights of which a reasonable … This, however, does not end the inquiry with respect to the Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity originated in Harlow v.

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.

Octavio Delgado v. Police Chief Arthur Jones and Deputy Chief Monica Ray

282 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 2002

Moreover, in the context of a qualified immunity defense, “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.” Donovan, 17 F.3d at 951 -52 (citing Rakovich v. … After establishing that the plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right, the second level of inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis involves whether the law was “clearly established” at the time

Nunez Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced

389 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars all monetary claims against them. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person

Wells v. Bonner

45 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1995

, they alternatively contend that they are entitled to claim qualified immunity because Wells has failed to show that they violated any clearly established constitutional right. … In this immunity appeal, we must next determine whether Wells's proffered evidence demonstrates the basis for the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert, 500 U.S.

Hicks v. P.O. Jenkins 8917

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2024

[Dkt. 63 at 4-7.]4 Second, his actions did not violate a clearly established right, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Id. at 8-10.] … This is insufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Kisela v.

Carman v. City of Eden Prairie

622 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 27, 1985

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Fair-view is thus entitled to qualified immunity because its conduct did not violate any of plaintiff’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Burl W. Everman v. Lesa G. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 6, 2024

As to qualified official immunity, Deputy Everman asserts that the act of parking his police vehicle at the accident scene constituted a discretionary act, which is protected by qualified official immunity. … The issue is whether qualified official immunity applies to bar a negligence claim if one could be established. -10-  ....

Brandon Peterson v. Cmdr. Roger Heinen

89 F.4th 628 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2023

To decide whether the district court should have granted qualified immunity, we ask if the facts “demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right” and if “the right was clearly established at the time of … Because the facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Peterson, do not support the violation of a clearly established right, we reverse.

Crump v. Passaic County

147 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2015

(2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Courts have been instructed “not to define clearly established law at 'a high level of generality.” Id. There is no clearly established law that the alleged conduct here violated the Fourth Amendment.

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank

953 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

II A federal official’s assertion of qualified immunity based upon the plaintiff’s failure to state a “violation of clearly established law” is a question of law. Mitchell v. … It is true that “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Brady v.

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.