Case law

Ratliff v. DeKalb County, GA

62 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1995

court assumed for the purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established. … The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from

Harris v. Roderick

126 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

In order to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … The Rules directly infringed on the clearly established constitutional rights of those at whom they were aimed, including Harris. There is no qualified immunity for such conduct, either.

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.

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Byers

521 S.W.3d 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2017

To stave off summary judgment on qualified immunity, a civil-rights plaintiff must assert a constitutional violation, demonstrate that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raise a genuine issue of fact … as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

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?

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.

Ermini v. Scott

249 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 2017

Even if shooting plaintiff was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiff establishes that Deputy Hamer violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established … The Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. Therefore, even if plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right was violated, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity. D.

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.

William LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich.

30 F.4th 572 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 8, 2022

Analysis In reviewing an order denying qualified immunity, the Court considers (1) whether an “official’s conduct . . . violate[d] a constitutional right,” and, if so, (2) whether “that right was . . . clearly established … Clearly Established “Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for civil damages if either the official’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right or if that right was not clearly established

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.

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

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. ...

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.

Walter v. Morton

33 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1994

Jurisdiction 5 We have jurisdiction to hear Chief Morton's and Mayor Vickers' appeals as they are appealing a denial of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is immunity from liability but also immunity from suit. … The "plaintiff must do more than identify in the abstract a clearly established right and allege that the defendant has violated it."

Angel v. Cruse

2014 NV 25 · Nevada Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2014

established law. . . for qualified immunity purposes." … established law, and Cruse was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Rios v. Scott

100 F. App'x 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2004

PER CURIAM:* Joshua Rio s and Mary Canales (“the Relatives”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Officer Sippel is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right for an officer to immediately intervene when an armed inmate attacks another inmate, as the officer may need

Harris v. City of Balch Springs

33 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 21, 2014

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from suit as well as liability for civil damages, if their conduct does not violate “clearly established … The court, however, will not set the action for trial until the issue of qualified immunity is resolved on appeal.

Gionis v. Headwest, Inc.

799 So. 2d 416 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 16, 2001

Gionis subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment as to Count VIII, on the basis that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Once it is established that the acts in question were discretionary governmental functions, the second element requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the government official violated the plaintiffs clearly established

Zion v. Nassan

283 F.R.D. 247 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2012

Nassan’s answer included “additional qualified immunity allegations.” (ECF No. 98 14-22, ¶¶ 1-47.) On November 23, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to strike the “additional qualified immunity allegations.” (ECF No. 103.) … The plaintiffs’ allegations, which are assumed to be true at this stage, establish that Nassan violated Haniotakis’ clearly-established right to be free from deadly “seizures.”

Young v. Akal

985 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2013

The court’s first inquiry in the examination of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has “alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” King v. … Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from liability if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Jackson v.