Case law

Furtado v. Yun Chung Law

51 So. 3d 1269 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 2, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Just as Justice Kennedy discussed qualified immunity with regard to section 1983 claims in Saucier, qualified immunity in a state claim is also an issue the trial court should address as soon as possible because the trial

Varrone v. Bilotti

123 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 1997

It held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it was clearly established at the time that strip searches of prison visitors could be made only when based upon reasonable suspicion. Varrone v. … The law was "clearly established" if the circuit's decisions "clearly foreshadow" a particular ruling on the issue. Id. Decisions of other circuits also may indicate whether the law was clearly established. See Weber v.

Ozga v. Elliot

150 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 21, 2015

That is because a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Ozga had no clearly established right not to be temporarily detained as he was in the police car, and it follows that none of the defendants acted objectively unreasonably.

Ethel Jones v. Gary Collins, Superintendent of Texarkana Independent School District

132 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 12, 1998

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional'right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nerren v. Livingston Police Dep't, 86 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir.1996). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

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.

Shields v. Shetler

682 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 29, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned conduct

Jones v. McNeese

883 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jul 5, 2012

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. … Qualified Immunity In resolving Dr. McNeese’s claim of qualified immunity, this court is required to essentially adopt the plaintiffs’ version of the facts, and then to resolve the abstract issue of law.

Domenech v. City of New York

927 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are immune from liability for civil damages if they establish either that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … Where reasonably competent officials could disagree as to whether the conduct at issue would violate clearly established rights, the immunity defense is available. Malley v.

Rasche v. Berman

491 S.W.3d 182 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 20, 2016

The court held that the Appel-lees were immune from Rasche’s claim that they negligently failed to cancel school, reasoning that the decision whether to close Jefferson County Public Schools is clearly an act involving the … Qualified official immunity is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pled. Gomez v.

Doe v. Beard

63 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2014

In the alternative, if there was a constitutional violation, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the right was not clearly established. (Id. at 14.) 1. … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense.

Hollihan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

159 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not clearly established when the indi *513 vidual acted. Pearson v. … The burden to establish qualified immunity rests with the defendant. Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 142 n. 15.

Rodriguez v. Swartz

111 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 9, 2015

Should this Court hold that J.A. was protected by either or both Amendments, Swartz asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because J.A.’s rights pursuant to the Fourth or Fifth Amendments were not clearly established … Further, the Court finds that J.A.’s rights were clearly established when Swartz seized him such that Swartz is not entitled to assert qualified immunity.

Saffell v. Crews

183 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 1999

That clearly established right must be one established in a particularized sense. This requires more than a general violation of the Fourth Amendment. … In the present case, Crews is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have rationally believed that the strip search was not unlawful in light of clearly established law and the information she possessed

Struck v. Hackett

668 A.2d 411 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1995

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action viewed in light of the ‘clearly established’ ” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Brinson v. McKeeman

992 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 31, 1997

on the lawfulness of the defendant’s actions, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity 47 Whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law is essentially a legal question. 48 In … a Section 1983 lawsuit, the relevant inquiry is whether the legal right which the plaintiff asserts was violated was clearly established under federal law. 49 Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held

Andrea Martinez v. Ronnet Sasse

37 F.4th 506 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

Sasse moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Sasse is entitled to qualified immunity.

Caudill v. Hollan

431 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hollan argues that she deserves qualified immunity because the law concerning patronage dismissals of deputy county clerks was not clearly established, particularly in light of Cope … immunity due to the absence of clearly established law.

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.

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.”

Zitta v. Graham

996 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 24, 2014

As long as the conduct was “objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken,” qualified immunity applies. Id. … As explained above, Officer Graham is entitled to qualified immunity because the point at which an officer’s conduct reaches state action in these circumstances has not been clearly established.