Case law

Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

956 F. Supp. 2d 1059 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 8, 2013

Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … second part of the qualified immunity analysis.

Edward Shaw v. City of Selma

884 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Instead of clearly establishing the law against Williams, binding precedent clearly establishes it in his favor. See Singletary v.

Holland Ex Rel. Overdorff v. Harrington

268 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2001

entitled to qualified immunity. … "An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law.”

Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

848 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2017

If the right was not clearly established, our inquiry ends and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Horne v. Coughlin

178 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 21, 1999

immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … the right was not yet clearly established.

Brad Livingston, Robert Treon, Martha Wear and Paul Morales v. Atiba Ramone Taylor, Tdcj 1082601

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY5 Qualified immunity shields a government official “performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official’s conduct does not violate clearly … evidence which establishes that the official’s conduct violated the clearly established law.

Ecclesiastical Order of the Ism of Am, Inc. v. Chasin

845 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 1988

clearly established law and the information the official possessed. 483 U.S. at -, 107 S.Ct. at 3040 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 532 . … Applying this standard of qualified immunity, the district court correctly found that none of the actions taken by the defendants violated any of the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Fauser v. Memphis Housing Authority

780 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Sep 17, 1991

Once the issue of qualified immunity is raised, plaintiff must identify the clearly established law and present facts which, if true, demonstrate that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law. … on the basis of defendant’s qualified immunity is whether the defendant “violated” those clearly established rights.

Defore v. Premore

863 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

Government officials pérforming discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity provided their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, defendants argue that they did not violate plaintiffs’ “clearly established” rights and thus are entitled to qualified immunity.

Brawley v. Washington

712 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 3, 2010

entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has shown evidence, if believed, that would demonstrate a violation of her clearly established rights, barring the qualified immunity defense. III.

Alford v. Haner

333 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and had probable cause for the arrest. … The first question under the two-part inquiry for determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity is whether the “law governing the official’s conduct [was] clearly established.” Act-Up!/Portland v.

Jean v. Collins

155 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 17, 1998

The approach we adopt will place parameters upon the immunity inquiry—if immunity is to stem litigation, as the Supreme Court intended, the issue of whether a right is clearly established should not send public officials … It would also violate the cardinal principle of qualified immunity — that officials may not later be subject to monetary liability when their behavior at the time did not violate any clearly established constitutional right

Lytle v. Wondrash

182 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1999

Thus, the constitutional right Lytle asserts in the present case was not clearly established at the time the Appellants allegedly retaliated against her, and as a result they are entitled to qualified immunity. … established’ to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow and its progeny.”

St. Hilaire v. City of Laconia

885 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 31, 1995

Accordingly, an officer is entitled to claim qualified immunity in a police misconduct case even if he acted unreasonably unless the law under which the officer’s conduct is deemed unreasonable was clearly established when … Thus, neither Gutierrez nor Garner provide clearly established law applicable to the circumstances in this case.

Blackmon v. Sutton

734 F.3d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 8, 2013

True, qualified immunity is strong stuff: the defense shields public officials from suit as long as their conduct didn’t infringe any legal rights clearly established at the time. See Camretta v. Greene, 131 S. … Conduct that violates the clearly established rights of convicts necessarily violates the clearly established rights of pretrial detainees.

El Paso Independent School District v. McIntyre

457 S.W.3d 475 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 6, 2014

and qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two part inquiry: (1) whether a public official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Jensen v. Conrad

570 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 18, 1983

established at the time an action occurred’ and that, if the court determined that it was not ‘clearly established’ at that time, a grant of summary judgment, based on the officials qualified immunity right, was in order … 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. ...

Mascorro v. Billings

656 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2011

An appeal is proper if the defendant sets off to show that the law was not clearly established at the time of the challenged action, or that qualified immunity is proper even under the plaintiff's version … To defeat the officers’ claim of qualified immunity, the Mascorros must show (1) the officers violated their constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) the violated rights were clearly established at the time of the events

Gary T. Mitchell v. Bernie C. Thompson

18 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1994

Analysis The issue here presented is one which we are all too familiar — whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a civil suit because the law was not clearly established at the time of his alleged … Under the prevailing precedent, unless the law is clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Román Meléndez v. Inclán

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right “clearly established” at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.