Case law

Trevis Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega

748 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2014

And, for the first time in this case, the defendants asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the alternative ground that the law did not “clearly establish” that their actions were unconstitutional. … CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW The only remaining issue relevant to the defendants’ qualified immunity defense is whether, by September 9, 2009, preexisting law clearly established that the defendants’ conduct violated

Doyle v. Coombe

976 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 26, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants have not raised qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. … “‘To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual’s right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ” LaBounty, 1996 WL 711497 at *1 (citations omitted).

Al-Mustafa Irshad v. Spann

543 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 1982

The defendants also raise the qualified immunity of Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), as a ground for dismissal. … Fitzgerald,U.S. -,-, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2735-2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (eliminates subjective component of good-faith immunity). This federal immunity defense clearly does not violate due process.

Case v. Eslinger

555 F.3d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … To invoke qualified immunity, the official first must establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. Bates, 518 F.3d at 1242.

Wayne Gerling v. Matthew Waite

2 F.4th 737 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 23, 2021

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … When a defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated his constitutional right, and that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

Diane Sigismondi Judy v. Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2022

As discussed herein, Petitioner pled facts demonstrating a violation of this clearly established law, so, per Marple, Eastern is entitled to no qualified immunity here. … clearly established statutory law.

Trigalet v. Young

54 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 1995

The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Trigalets’ substantive due process claim upon concluding that, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established that the officers … The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law under which defendants actions could form the basis of a constitutional claim became clearly established on March 1, 1990, when

Gardner v. Evans

811 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider two questions: First, did the defendant violate a constitutional right? And second, were the contours of that right clearly established? … notice requirement was clearly established.

Mildred I. Goyco De Maldonado v. Jose A. Rivera, Etc.

849 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 9, 1988

Where qualified immunity is the issue, the relevant query is whether, at the time of the challenged employment action, “it was clearly established that employees in the particular positions at issue, in light of the responsibilities … , qualified immunity shields that conduct.

Moore v. Newton

220 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable … Qualified immunity extends to circumstances where an official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” and applies “regardless of whether

McColley v. County of Rensselaer

740 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 21, 2014

Such a denial of qualified immunity is reviewed by this Court to determine whether “the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law.” Escalera v. … . it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

148 F. Supp. 3d 1232 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 7, 2015

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … with the prior case law and granted qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.

Estate of D.E.; D.E., individually by and through his mother, Christine Erickson; Christine Erickson, individually; and I.E., a minor, by and through her mother, Christine Erickson v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; Jeffery M. Pack; and Jennifer L. Raper, individually and in her capacity as an employee/agent of West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Nov 4, 2024

to a good faith report of child abuse or neglect; and both are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no allegation that they violated a clearly established 3 law … “[I]t is well- established that matters involving qualified immunity, such as the case presently before us, require a type of ‘heightened pleading’ standard.” W. Virginia Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v.

Smith v. Stafford

189 P.3d 1065 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2008

that qualified immunity is appropriate. … 42 If the allegations show a constitutional violation, courts then must determine whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established," which occurs where the "contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that

Demoret v. Zegarelli

451 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2006

I Qualified Immunity 24 Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary duties "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established law.

Michael Kingsley v. Stan Hendrickson

801 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

The defendants take a different position; in their view, the decision of the Supreme Court en- titles them to qualified immunity. … In § 1983 actions, “[q]ualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

King v. Thornburg

762 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Apr 17, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant Brown contends that even if he is not entitled to absolute immunity he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions would have been taken within his “discretionary authority” as chief … In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the

Jensen v. Zuern

517 N.W.2d 118 · North Dakota Court of Appeals · May 31, 1994

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. … clearly established law].

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Joseph Rome v. Eugene Burden, Michel Cabello, Angela Phillips, and Sareta Davis

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 31, 2002

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. We need only reach this issue if there is a clearly established statutory or constitutional right violated. Rome has not alleged any violation of a statutory right. … Furthermore, as Rome did not establish the predicate constitutional violation, we need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.