Case law

Estate of Sorrells v. City of Dallas

192 F.R.D. 203 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 25, 2000

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Allen v. Town of Colcord

874 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2012

capacity, and Defendants Creech and Denny do not dispute this in their reply. 98 Plaintiff further states that none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as they all violated clearly established Constitutional … qualified immunity context, a plaintiff must allege facts, if assumed to be true, that are sufficient to show that the defendants violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established

Janice Akins v. Fulton County, Georgia

420 F.3d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2005

Clearly Established Law The final step in the qualified immunity inquiry is determining whether the law was clearly established so as to put Gates on notice that his behavior was a violation. … We based our primary holding on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

Mitchell v. Miller

56 F. Supp. 3d 57 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 26, 2014

prong (whether the right was clearly established). … established law for purposes of qualified immunity.

Glass v. Abbo

284 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 3, 2003

. § 1983 for money damages, qualified immunity protects a public official from being sued as long as the official ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground-that, in light of the clearly established principles governing

Brown v. Oregon Department of Corrections

751 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 29, 2014

Government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … We begin with the second prong of the qualified- immunity analysis: whether the right was clearly established  BROWN V. OREGON DEP’T OF CORR. 13 at the time of the alleged violation.

Ryan v. Burlington County

889 F.2d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 1989

The Freeholders raise two defenses against Ryan’s suit: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … , then those officials must be held accountable for instances where their actions violate clearly established rights.

Matrisciano v. Randle

569 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the violation of a constitutional right was not clearly established at the relevant time, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Summer Gorman v. State of Mississippi

892 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

“‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … To defeat qualified immunity in a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate both a bona fide Fourth Amendment violation on the facts alleged and that the violation was clearly established

Martha L. Pike Cynthia J. Kincer v. Kermit L. Osborne, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Wythe County, Virginia

301 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

Osborne appealed, claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity either, because the plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutional violation or because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time of the … Because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time the plaintiffs were not reappointed, Sheriff Osborne is entitled to qualified immunity.

Young ex rel. Bucy v. Jefferson County Sheriff

318 P.3d 458 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jan 13, 2014

by the legislature, and both clearly indicate that the good faith of any person who qualifies for immunity "shall be presumed." … To hold otherwise would impermissibly defile the legislature's attempt to immunize qualifying law enforcement officers from liability.

Pinder v. Johnson

54 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1995

Qualified immunity under § 1983 shields officials from civil liability unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Delbridge v. Schaeffer

238 N.J. Super. 323 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1989

It held, therefore, that a public official is immune from liability unless he or she violates a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. 457 U.S. at 817-818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2737-38 . … As articulated by the Court, the principles of qualified immunity permit an FBI agent "to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless

Vines v. City of Dallas, Tex.

851 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 28, 1994

Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. In determining whether Defendant Hart has established her defense of qualified immunity, the Court uses a two-prong analysis. … Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. Therefore, the Court must decide whether Hart violated a clearly established right of the Plaintiff. The Court finds that Hart did not.

Omar v. Casterline

288 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 11, 2003

In considering the defendants’ qualified immunity claim, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the “qualified ... immunity doctrine was established to reconcile two competing interests. … that the official’s actions violated clearly established federal law.

Randle v. Tregre

147 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity, asserted by all of the defendants, if established, precludes li'ability'for damages on all of plaintiffs federal law claims against defendants in their .individual capacities … of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in light of .clearly established law.”

Elkins v. District of Columbia

690 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The district court denied Williams-Cherry qualified immunity on the ground that it has long been clearly established that seizing items based on a warrant that does not authorize such seizure is unconstitutional.

Mark Abbott v. Laurie J. Latshaw, Albert Diehl, Dennis George, Robert Stafford and Donald Sarsfield

164 F.3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Our qualified immunity inquiry thus proceeds in two steps. See Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 828 (3d Cir.1997). First, we must determine whether the defendants violated “clearly established” rights.

Davis v. Hodgkiss

11 F.4th 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2021

The first such determination is “that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Id. … The officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct “did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

Roe v. Hamilton County Department of Human Services

53 Ohio App. 3d 120 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1988

“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a qualified immunity is appropriate, they should have an opportunity to show whether any clearly established constitutional or statutory standards were violated.