Case law

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.

J. D. Pflaumer, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice

450 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1978

at most, only the qualified immunity enjoyed by police officers. … Defendant Manno, based on the allegations of this case, is entitled to only a qualified immunity defense, requiring him to establish that his alleged action in directing the seizure of the plaintiffs’ records was done in

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.

Jean-Gabriel Bernier v. Jeff Allen

38 F.4th 1145 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 5, 2022

Allen’s decision violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment right, we hold that the doctor is entitled to qualified immunity from Bernier’s damages claim. … Nevertheless, the majority rests its conclusion on the clearly established prong of 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

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).

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

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.

Victor Perez v. James Cox

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2019

The Clearly Established Right The second part of the qualified immunity test requires that the constitutional right that has been violated was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity analysis.3 And at prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, the majority points to no authority clearly establishing that the Use of Force Regulation actually promulgated by the Nevada Department of

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Egolf v. Witmer

526 F.3d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 2008

The court granted immunity on the basis that the constitutional rights were not “clearly established” in the circumstances of this case. This appeal followed. … Qualified immunity turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.” Anderson v.

Mehta v. Foskey

877 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 29, 2012

The defense of qualified immunity “turns on the objective legal reason *1376 ableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … immunity because they 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.”