Case law

Denno Ex Rel. Denno v. School Board of Volusia County

959 F. Supp. 1481 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 3, 1997

Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Mitchell v. … In this case, the Court finds that Roberts and Wallace are entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the law is not so “clearly established” in such a “concrete and factually defined context” to make

Mills v. City of Shreveport

58 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their performance of discretionary functions, unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.' See Ontiveros v. … clearly established right.

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.

Wayne Scott and Gary Johnson v. Charles Godwin

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 31, 2004

In conducting a qualified immunity analysis, the reviewing court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v. … “‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

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

Linda L. Harrell, Individually, as Personal Representative, and as Surviving Spouse of Larry Gene Harrell, Deceased v. Decatur County, Ga.

22 F.3d 1570 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 1994

Thus, if the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity privilege “ordinarily should fail, because a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Deputy Morris The focus of our inquiry into deputy Morris’s assertion of qualified immunity is whether his actions violated clearly established law. Rich, 841 F.2d at 1564 .

Brown v. Thompson

868 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Oct 17, 1994

established for purposes of qualified immunity: The clearly established law is that set forth in the discussion above. … This clearly establishes that the Magistrate did not adequately address the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. Brown’s deliberate indifference claim rests on three points.

Fijalkowski v. Wheeler

361 F. Supp. 3d 577 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 12, 2019

Yet importantly, the well-established, judicially-created 5 defense of qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from civil liability under § 1983"unless their actions violated 'clearly established statutory … qualified immunity from plaintiff's due process claim.

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.

Hansen v. Lamontagne

808 F. Supp. 89 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 20, 1992

A government official exercising discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity in respect to § 1983 claims only if his or her conduct does not violate *92 “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, it is plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate defendant’s infringement of a “clearly established” federal right.

Kenneth Hunt v. Dale Acosta

109 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2024

The district court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Officer Acosta and qualified immunity for Mayor Williams and Chief Wilson. … Qualified Immunity Interlocutory review of the denial of qualified immunity is limited to “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.”

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

Gold v. City of Miami

121 F.3d 1442 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

Discussion Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and damage liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … At the time, no cases clearly established that those actions did not constitute legally proscribed disorderly conduct.

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.

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.”

Braun v. Maynard

652 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

Previous cases need not be on all fours with the current one to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. See Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 362-63 (4th Cir. 2001). … In the qualified immunity context, these factors counsel against hastily concluding that the law clearly forbade the officers’ conduct.

Palmieri v. Clark County

Court of Appeals of Nevada · Dec 31, 2015

Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information

Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

971 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 3, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Thus, in evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Kinney v. Weaver

367 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2002

Not long after Harlow , the Court refined the qualified immunity standard by defining “clearly established” in a way that encompasses the “objective reasonableness” inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified … Yet, at the same time, an official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.

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.