Case law

Hunt v. Sapien

480 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 29, 2007

No Clearly Established Law Even if Mr. … Hunt had established a constitutional violation sufficient to overcome the first prong of qualified immunity, he has not shown that the right was clearly established at the time he was placed in administrative segregation

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 7, 1993

The court framed the qualified immunity issue as being "whether minor school children suspected of being victims of child abuse had, [at the relevant time] a clearly established right to be free from questioning and visual … The court found no such clearly established right, and found, therefore that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and were therefore not liable.

Willie Dixon, Hyon Dixon v. Deputy Sheriff Donald Richer, Deputy Sheriff David Yarbrough

922 F.2d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 10, 1991

"Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity `[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.'" Powell v. … Under the qualified immunity inquiry, we must next determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed that the conduct in question did not violate clearly established law.

Franceski v. Plaquemines Parish School Board

602 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 7, 1985

rights must show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue, in order to overcome a defendant official’s qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has failed to assert a clearly established right which was violated. In this regard, the instant case is indistinguishable from Davis v. Scherer, supra, which is dispositive on the issue of qualified immunity.

George v. Morris

736 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

Concluding that the deputies had not argued for its application, the court did not address the second prong of qualified immunity — the clearly established inquiry. … Our decision on the clearly established issue does not prevent the deputies from appropriately raising the second prong of qualified immunity at 1 a subsequent stage in the litigation, such as in a Rule 50 motion for judgment

Nelson v. Silverman

888 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 6, 1995

The Bothke court merely assumed that there is a clearly established right of freedom from abusive tax collection activities for the purposes of dealing with a qualified immunity issue. … A defendant would be immune from suit if he could establish that his actions were objectively reasonable by reference to clearly established law. Harlow v.

Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department

102 A.D.3d 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2012

In response, then Governor Paterson issued an executive order declaring a disaster emergency with respect to the influenza outbreak, which authorized state and local health departments to establish immunization programs in … We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs assertion that immunity pursuant to the PREP Act does not extend to qualified persons who administer a covered countermeasure to an individual without consent.

Jones v. City & County of Denver

854 F.2d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 1988

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields governmental officials from personal liability unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … He relies on Colorado statutory and decisional law to argue that clearly established law requires arrest warrants in all cases.

Richard Fields v. City of Philadelphia

862 F.3d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 7, 2017

Katz, the Supreme Court held that courts must determine whether a constitutional right existed before deciding if it had been “clearly established” such that defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S … Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a constitutional right “so clearly established *361 that ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right

Barnes v. Dekalb County

898 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 24, 2012

Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 714 (11th Cir.2010) (qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not “ ‘violate clearly established statutory … As discussed, qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for conduct that does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

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.

STATE EX REL. W. VA. DHHR v. Kaufman

506 S.E.2d 93 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1998

from suit based upon (1) statutory immunity; (2) quasi-judicial immunity; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty … ; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty doctrine.

Kenneth Hill v. Richard Trinci, Dominto Carrillo, Jackie Dent, Warner Lumpkins, Lee Williams, and Kandice Woodard

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 24, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … The plaintiff must show: (1) the official’s conduct violated a federally guaranteed right; (2) the right was clearly established; and (3) the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

Morales v. City of New York

59 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Applying those standards here, there is no question that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Aiken v. Nixon

236 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 30, 2002

Qualified Immunity — General Qualified immunity is available only to defendants in their individual capacities and only on that much of the claims seeking monetary damages. Lewis v. … The Court concludes that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Scott v. City of Columbus, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

of clearly established law and the information that he possessed. … defendant's conduct did indeed violate clearly established rights).

Buckheit v. Dennis

713 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2010

Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Where a plaintiff asserts a Fourth Amendment violation based on the absence of probable cause, the relevant inquiry with respect to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a ‘reasonable

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

Mafuz Blanco v. Tirado Delgado

641 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 1986

As applied, this objective qualified 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 … Defendant concedes that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s removal.