Case law

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

Rodriguez v. Panarello

119 F. Supp. 3d 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2015

clearly established. … Moreover, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the right allegedly violated must have been clearly established at the time of the violation.

Amanda Sumpter v. Wayne Cty.

868 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2017

It asks whether our case law clearly establishes Officer Graham’s justification for the group searches as a legitimate one. Infra at 494-96. But that’s not how qualified immunity works. … To overcome an officer’s request for immunity, the plaintiff must show that the “right” she seeks to vindicate is clearly established, not that the officer’s justification is not clearly established. Wegener v.

Renalde v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO

807 F. Supp. 668 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 1, 1992

A § 1983 defendant enjoys qualified immunity unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Therefore, this claim, even if cognizable, was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and Rathburn, Watts, and Organ are entitled to qualified immunity. VII.

MCCLOUD v. VANSHOYCK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 2024

Defendants Holt, Donovan, Barlow, Hall, and Nicholson all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is not a clearly established right to an additional decontamination shower beyond … "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v.

Buchwald v. University of New Mexico School of Medicine

159 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 20, 1998

to qualified immunity. … Finally, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Klepper and Atencio’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity because we conclude that the law was not clearly established.

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

O'Connor v. Chicago Transit Authority

778 F. Supp. 967 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 13, 1991

Qualified Immunity on the First Amendment Claim Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the first amendment claim. Under Harlow v. … clearly established).

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

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.”

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.

Hayes v. Mercer County

217 N.J. Super. 614 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1987

In our discussion of the federal qualified immunity, we stated why the investigator acted in good faith here. … Plaintiffs' remaining points are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”