Case law

Kies v. City of Aurora

149 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2001

The Seventh Circuit has noted in the context of qualified immunity that if the plaintiffs’ initial pleadings themselves, taken as true, fail to adequately allege the violation of any clearly established right, dismissal for … The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Paul Mollica v. James A. Volker

229 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2000

For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … whether the right is clearly established).

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

Maness v. Daily

Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2013

Fitzgerald.17 Under this standard, qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established.”27 In short, because Maness cannot show pursuant to his theory of liability that the troopers violated any of his clearly established rights, the troopers are protected by qualified immunity from Maness’s excessive

Elvan Moore v. Kevin Pederson

806 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2015

But because the law on these points was not clearly established in this Circuit before our decision today, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment *1040 on qualified-immunity grounds to Peder-son. … In pursuit of that aim, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional

Kincade v. City of Blue Springs

64 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 1995

“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.’ ” Buzek v. … law, cannot be “clearly established.”

Oliver v. Arnold

19 F.4th 843 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a § 1983 plaintiff must state not only a constitutional violation, but a “clearly established” one. … Rejecting a 3 For the same reasons, the teacher should at a minimum have received qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established law.

Bouchard v. Whetstone

772 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 24, 2011

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must establish “that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right.” Albright v. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Officers Whetstone and Jimenez assert the defense of qualified immunity. *1359 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability

Jones v. Stine

843 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 10, 1994

They are shielded by qualified immunity. … Because the asserted right was found not to have been clearly established, the Gawloski court held the defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

In Re City of Philadelphia Litigation

158 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 1998

We disagree with both contentions. 33 It is axiomatic that the qualified immunity inquiry focuses on whether an official's conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … were clearly established at the time of the official's conduct.

Perez v. Ellington

421 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 22, 2005

This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. … It is first necessary to determine exactly which clearly established constitutional right Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated.

Fortner v. Thomas

983 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1993

clearly established law.” … It is well established that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability as long as the officials could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established

Ogborn v. City of Lancaster

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2002

The Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Governmental Immunity. … This immunity provision bars the Ogborns’ claim for trespassing because the warrant clearly authorized entry onto the Property and into the structures located there.

Davis v. Borough

669 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2009

“A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Berg v. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ” Wilson v.

Durr v. Slator

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 2, 2021

Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 231 (2d Cir. 2014) ("An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury"). … "Even if the force is objectively unreasonable, an officer may still be eligible for qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that her action did not violate clearly established law

Thompson v. Spikes

663 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 22, 1987

to trial, and that entitlement to qualified immunity turns on "the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … been violated are all “clearly established.”

Hoffer v. Ancel

176 Vt. 630 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 28, 2004

Applying the doctrine of qualified immunity, the trial court granted defendants summary judgment. … Finally, plaintiff argues that qualified immunity does not apply to plaintiffs declaratory judgment claim. See Allen v.

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

Rudley v. Little Rock Police Dep't

935 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2019

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Rudley, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … We reversed the denial of qualified immunity, concluding that no precedent clearly established that Ernst’s takedown was unreasonable at the time of the incident.

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.