Case law

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.

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

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

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.”

Delores Escobar, Individually, as Representative of the Estate of Luis Manuel Escobar, and as Next Friend of Luis Alberto Escobar, a Minor v. Harris County, Texas and Eric Goodney

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 31, 2014

Clearly established law and qualified immunity After Deputy Goodney raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden of persuasion fell on Escobar to negate the defense. … If he did, then the clearly established law permits the use of deadly force. If he didn’t, then the clearly established law prohibits it.

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.

Benckini v. Hawk

654 F. Supp. 2d 310 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2009

Under the defense of qualified immunity, “[gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the officer at that time, and must then determine

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

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).

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.

Sanchez v. Canales

574 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2009

It then considered whether the Officers could “conduct the probation search without suspicion of wrongdoing,” granting immunity because it had not been clearly established “what level of suspicion, if any, was required prior … established one way or another — denied qualified immunity on the detention claim.

Willingham v. Crooke

412 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

This is known as the defense of qualified immunity. 13 Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, Ms. … immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Kinzer v. Jackson

316 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 9, 2003

The court therefore refused to accord Harris qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government employee acting in his official capacity from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless the employee’s conduct violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable

Atwater v. Tucker

343 Ga. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 24, 2017

The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant's conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law[; in … App. 165 , 167 (1), 480 S.E.2d 217 (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted). *306 For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such

Farmer, Dee v. Moritsugu, Kenneth

163 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 1998

Analysis A.Qualified Immunity Principles It is well-established that qualified immunity shields gov- ernment officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Moritsugu is protected by qualified immunity unless Farm- er's allegations could sustain a finding that his conduct violat- ed clearly established law. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Valdez v. Farmon

766 F. Supp. 1529 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1991

event to compel her to give up that clearly established right. … A defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity if: 1. the law allegedly violated was not clearly established (a legal issue); 2. assuming that the law was clearly established, a reasonable person in the same circumstances

Avery v. Davis

700 F. App'x 949 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2017

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … But “broad general proposition[s]” like that one are not enough to clearly establish the law; instead, the “question is whether the violative nature of particular *953 conduct [was] clearly established.” Mullenix v.

Hambright v. Kemper

705 F. App'x 461 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 8, 2017

immunity because, as of 2013, it was not clearly established that rescheduling the feast eight days after Ramadan’s end violated the First Amendment. … Finally Hambright challenges the magistrate judge’s ruling that Wahlstrom and Nurdeen were entitled to qualified immunity, given that Hambright had no clearly established right to have the feast served within three days of