Case law

Johnson-El v. Schoemehl

878 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 1989

of clearly established law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a clearly established right, the contours of which are sufficiently clear that

Gibbons v. McBride

124 F. Supp. 3d 1342 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 21, 2015

Thus, “[i]f a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court should grant qualified immunity if the plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established … established for purposes of qualified immunity); Riley v.

Crane v. City of Arlington

50 F.4th 453 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is asking “whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” 58 The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the

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.

RITSCHEL v. City of Fountain Valley

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2006

Here, the court had heard the bulk of the evidence during the qualified immunity defense phase. … When a court determines “no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” (Ibid.)

Cox v. Thompson

635 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 12, 1986

First plaintiff contends that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply in this case because the rights asserted by the plaintiff are clearly established constitutional rights. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE “Government officials performing discretionary functions, as here, are shielded from liability for damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory

Calderon v. State of Kansas

24 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 22, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “In analyzing qualified immunity claims, we first ask if a plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right at all, and then assess whether the right was clearly established at the time of a defendant’s actions

Rita Carroll v. Fredrick W. Pfeffer

262 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2001

Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials who can prove that their conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Next, Carroll asserts that Officer Pfeffer was not entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity because he violated her clearly established constitutional right to freedom of speech by retaliating against her

Rodeman v. Foster

767 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 16, 2011

Once defendants asserted qualified immunity, the burden shifted to plaintiff to show the violation of a clearly established right. See Powell v. … no material facts remain in dispute that would defeat his or her claim of qualified immunity.”).

Sandra T.E. v. Grindle

599 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2010

Grindle moved for summary judgment, claiming she was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs had failed to estab- lish a violation of a clearly established right. … If they do, we ask whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of alleged violation. If so, the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Michael C. v.

Donald Tangwall v. Thomas Stuckey

135 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 1998

Again, we shall reserve addressing whether Detective Stuck-ey acted in violation of clearly established law and, alternatively, the merits of his qualified immunity defense until later in this opinion. … We hold that Stuckey did not violate a clearly established law and that he is entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of the lawsuit against him. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED. 1 .

Rivera v. Washington

298 Ga. 770 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Mar 25, 2016

The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it was possible that facts could be shown in discovery that would establish that neither quasi-judicial immunity nor sovereign immunity applied. … But, Cameron did not make such a pronouncement about qualified immunity under the laws of this state.

Dugas v. Jefferson County

931 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 21, 1996

Underlying Policy and Principles of Analysis The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The seminal qualified immunity decision, Harlow v.

Fittanto v. Klein

788 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1992

Because the law in 1984 and 1985 was not clearly established, the court held that the defendants who interviewed the children were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … Because the law in this area is not clearly established, defendant Klein is entitled to qualified immunity for her conduct. Plaintiffs counter that this case is remarkably like Snell v.

Smith v. Nixon

582 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 1984

Sullivan and Cartha DeLoach: Qualified Immunity The remaining defendants move for summary judgment under the qualified immunity doctrine established in Harlow, supra. … of qualified immunity.

Dorothea Gravely v. John Madden

142 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 1998

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … Put another way, the question of whether Madden is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective reasonableness of his actions, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time they

Staley v. Lingerfelt

134 N.C. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 1999

App. at 725-26 , 460 S.E.2d at 211 : ‘The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Gehl Group v. Koby

838 F. Supp. 1409 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 2, 1993

Qualified immunity allows a public official to escape liability if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Bights Next, I must examine the second component of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established law precluding qualified immunity.

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.

Joseph Jones v. City of Jackson, Malcolm McMillin and Les Tannehill

203 F.3d 875 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity asserted in a motion for summary judgment is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … of the clearly established legal rules.