Case law

Giebel v. Sylvester

244 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

was not clearly established at the time of Sylvester's actions. … not entitled to qualified immunity.

Robert J. Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and John W. Behrens

968 F.2d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 29, 1992

in creating the qualified immunity doctrine. … On review of a denial of qualified immunity, “[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established constitutional rights.” Todd v.

Octavio Delgado v. Police Chief Arthur Jones and Deputy Chief Monica Ray

282 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 2002

Moreover, in the context of a qualified immunity defense, “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.” Donovan, 17 F.3d at 951 -52 (citing Rakovich v. … After establishing that the plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right, the second level of inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis involves whether the law was “clearly established” at the time

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.

Chapman v. Nichols

989 F.2d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

issue is not unconstitutional and that he is entitled to qualified immunity in any event because the law was not clearly established. 3 Plaintiffs respond that the policy is unconstitutional, that the law was clearly established … Two of the five cases held, as we do here, that the qualified immunity defense must fail in light of clearly established law. See Weber, 804 F.2d at 803-04 ; Jones, 770 F.2d at 742 n. 4.

Rich v. United States

158 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To obtain qualified immunity, Defendants must establish that in light of this clearly established law, the agents reasonably could have believed that the search of Plaintiffs’ home was lawful.

Walker v. Jackson

952 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 8, 2013

Second, they argue that they have qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the ■ time of their alleged violation. … The case law addressing supervisory liability is clearly established, and Sergeant Horan has not advanced any argument in support of qualified immunity. He is not entitled to dismissal of Count Y. v.

Braswell v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

369 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 26, 2005

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1377 stitutional rights of which a reasonable … This, however, does not end the inquiry with respect to the Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity originated in Harlow v.

Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

221 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 22, 2004

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that its decision to overrule the Individual Hospital Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous or that it resulted in manifest injustice to any … Conclusion With the exception of the Court’s ruling on whether the Hospital Defendants’ qualified immunity objections were substantially justified, the Hospital Defendants fail to show how the Court’s rulings were clearly

Alvarez Sepulveda v. Colon Matos

247 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 24, 2003

“[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent … “[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent

Harris v. Hayter

970 F. Supp. 500 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 18, 1997

When a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the court should address it at the earliest possible stage because qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the focus is upon the reasonable person and whether he would have known that he was violating a clearly established constitutional right.

Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

634 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2011

This involves two questions: “(1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendant violated a con- stitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established … Whether a Violated Right Was Clearly Established The second inquiry, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, is whether the constitutional standards at issue were clearly established at the time the alleged violation oc- curred.

Putthoff v. Ancrum

934 S.W.2d 164 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 1996

In upholding the district court’s granting of the medical examiners’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court reasoned: Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary … Furthermore, the elements of official immunity and qualified immunity appear for all practical purposes to be the same.

Amaechi v. West

87 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 28, 2000

Amaechi — no matter how rapidly performed — would violate her clearly established rights. It follows that Officer West is not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. … infringed was "clearly established.”

Ringer v. Fallis

848 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 31, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A court must begin its qualified immunity analysis with the determination of whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v.

Gall v. City of Vidor, Tex.

903 F. Supp. 1062 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 1995

Qualified immunity allows public officials performing discretionary functions to be generally shielded from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established rights of which a reasonable … Luce’s actions, this court finds that a clearly established exception to the general rule against warrantless searches and seizures exists and Mr. Luce is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Anthony v. Baker

808 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 10, 1992

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless that official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct. Id.

Outlaw v. City of Meriden

43 Conn. App. 387 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 1, 1996

“The Supreme Court has expressly encouraged the use of summary judgment when qualified immunity is raised as a defense. … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Williams v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

145 Ohio App. 3d 530 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Estate of Hammers v. Douglas Cnty.

303 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 2018

Defendants argue Undersheriff Massey is entitled to qualified immunity, because the law was not clearly established that any of his actions violated the constitution. … While it is indeed clearly established that correctional facilities must provide adequate medical care to its inmates, it is not "clearly established"-for purposes of qualified immunity-that Undersheriff Massey's policies