Case law

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

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.

McCloud v. Testa

97 F.3d 1536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 1996

We also conclude that this proposition is clearly established. … We recognize that our citation to unpublished cases, especially in the qualified immunity context, where the key inquiry is whether a principle of law is clearly established, may be perceived as problematic.

Brazos Transit District v. Lozano

72 S.W.3d 442 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Mar 28, 2002

if the employee is protected by qualified immunity, then so is the governmental entity; and “[t]o that extent, a claim of sovereign immunity may be ‘based on’ an individual’s assertion of qualified immunity and therefore … This cannot fairly be characterized as an assertion of qualified. immunity. Brazos’ attempt to appeal fails under section (5).