Case law

Ernest Jackson, Sr. v. Raymond Hoylman and Robert Bidwell

933 F.2d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1991

The court then considered the qualified immunity motion and concluded that because qualified immunity turns on the same objective reasonableness standard that the claim of excessive turns on, defendants must be denied summary … be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.

Suboh v. City of Revere, Mass.

141 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2001

In light of its unclear boundaries and qualified nature, however, courts have been hesitant to hold that the abstract right to familial integrity is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity in the absence … immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

Fletcher v. Burkhalter

605 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 24, 2010

was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Clearly Established Law Deputy Burkhalter entitles a section of his opening brief, “A Reasonable Person in Defendant’s Position Would Not Have Recognized That Deputy Burkhalter’s Actions Violated a Clearly Established

Johnson v. Carroll

658 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 7, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … “Qualified immunity involves the following two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at

Olsen v. Idaho State Board of Medicine

363 F.3d 916 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 2004

Additionally, the Board’s proceedings are clearly adversarial, a proposition which is not in dispute. … We have previously explained that acts occurring during - a disciplinary hearing process clearly fall within the scope of absolute immunity. Mishler, 191 F.3d at 1008 .

Milfort v. Prevete

3 F. Supp. 3d 14 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 14, 2014

Qualified immunity applies when a government actor’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right, or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiffs … However, because sufficient material facts have been established, the Court will recount the factors compelling its conclusion that Prevete was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Marvin Reeves v. Lt. Jacob King

774 F.3d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 2014

King is “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) ‘the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most favorable to [Reeves], establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,’ and (2) the ‘right was clearly … In Irving, 519 F.3d at 451, we affirmed the district court’s order denying qualified immunity because it was clearly established at that time that labeling an inmate a snitch would unreasonably subject the inmate to a substantial

Madison County Fiscal Court v. Kentucky Labor Cabinet

352 S.W.3d 572 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Aug 25, 2011

qualified official immunity. … As such, Appellants contend they either share the state’s sovereign immunity or are cloaked with governmental or qualified official immunity as entities performing a public function.

Farmer v. Perrill

288 F.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2002

When a § 1983 defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity on summary judgment, the plaintiff must show the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred and must come forward with … sufficient facts to show the official violated that clearly established law.

Young v. Martin

172 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 25, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, such an official will not be found personally liable for money damages unless the official’s actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established.

Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

815 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2016

The court also held that its conclusions in each respect were supported by clearly established law and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. … In the absence of clearly established law that squarely governs the situation here, qualified immunity is appropriate on the knock-and-announce claim. Id. at 309.

Delia v. City of Rialto

621 F.3d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 9, 2010

Qualified Immunity—The City’s Employees [1] “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Nevertheless, we conclude that these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Delia has not established that this constitu- tional right was clearly established at the time of Chief Wells’s order to Delia.

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. ...

Phyllis J. May v. City of Nahunta, Georgia

846 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

In evaluating a government actor’s entitlement to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test wherein “the official’s actions must be evaluated against ‘clearly established law,’ … Second, we determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct. Id.

Roska v. Sneddon

311 F. Supp. 2d 1307 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 26, 2004

At the same time, however, “where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only ‘rarely’ be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense.” … was “clearly established.”

John Montin v. Y. Moore

846 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

A state official is immune from liability unless he or she “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known.” Carpenter v. … When determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, we examine (1) whether the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

George WICKS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Et Al., Defendants, Hazel Cook, Defendant-Appellant

41 F.3d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

To overcome the immunity defense, the complaint must allege facts that, if proven, would demonstrate that Cook violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. 12 Heightened pleading demands more than bald … While Wicks does allege racial animus, an element of the prima facie case for his discrimination claim, he fails to allege any conduct of Cook that could be considered to “violate a clearly established statutory ... right

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.

Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga.

520 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2008

However, the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks the question “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” … Because pre-existing law did not provide fair warning to Appellees that demoting Rioux under these circumstances would violate clearly established federal law, Ap-pellees are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Florance v. Buchmeyer

500 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 31, 2007

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the threshold question is whether, on the facts as alleged by plaintiff, a clearly established constitutional right would have been violated. … In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question. Siegert v.