Case law

Cynthia Clayborn v. Dennis Struebling

734 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Examining qualified immunity, this court applies a two-part test.

Ram v. Rubin

118 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official asserts qualified immunity, we apply a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Lee v. Sandberg

136 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the officers' unlawful actions were objectively reasonable "as measured by reference to clearly established … Therefore, the State Troopers are not entitled to summary judgment under the "clearly established right" prong of the qualified immunity standard. 32 The State Troopers are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment on qualified

Demster v. City of Lenexa, Kan.

359 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 16, 2005

The court dismissed this claim after finding that defendants were shielded by qualified immunity. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the court employs a two-part test.

Dean v. Blumenthal

577 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

We hold that all requested relief, other than damages, is moot and that appellee is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign … We also hold that appellee Richard Blumenthal is entitled to qualified immunity from Dean’s claim for damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign contributions during

Stipetich v. Grosshans

235 Wis. 2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 6, 2000

"Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate a person's clearly established constitutional rights." Id. at 469 . … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating "by closely analogous case law, that the defendant has violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id.

Rancho del Oso Pardo, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 21, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established.

McCaslin v. Wilkins

17 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 1998

A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a Defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

East Coast Novelty Co., Inc. v. City of New York

809 F. Supp. 285 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 1992

clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … But, [e]ven where the law is “clearly established” and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is “clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him

Duckworth v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

491 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established”). … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis “is to ask whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” See Saucier v.

Hill v. Miller

878 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1995

As the Seventh Circuit recently reaffirmed, “[p]olice officers who use force are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly, Miller maintains that his conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia

53 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1999

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider whether the individually named defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, Plaintiff is simply unable to establish that Defendants Gaskins and Thomas violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Dorsey v. Sokoloff

381 F. Supp. 3d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 2019

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis examines whether a police officer's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time that the conduct occurred. … In consequence, the Fourth Circuit held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for seven of the Taser shocks because he had violated the clearly established constitutional right of an arrestee to be free

Samuel Campbell v. City of Springboro, Ohio

700 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2012

Qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Right For a right to be “clearly established,” “[t]he contours of that right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Mark Cook v. Roberta Sheldon and Nelson Saldana, New York State Troopers

41 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

We conclude that the Troopers have not yet earned qualified immunity as a matter of law because, under the facts alleged by Cook, the Troopers may be held to have violated Cook’s clearly established rights. … To evaluate the Troopers’ right to qualified immunity, we must again examine whether the malicious prosecution claim alleges a violation of Cook’s clearly established federal rights.

Bever v. Gilbertson

724 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 1984

By eliminating the subjective component of the qualified immunity claim, the Supreme Court clearly intended to facilitate disposition of claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment motions, but one must read much into … A public official, clothed with qualified immunity, is not required to anticipate future development of constitutional doctrine, but he is required to respect the established constitutional rights of others.

Soderstrand v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

463 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Pride v. Kansas Highway Patrol

793 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 1, 1992

of the law that was clearly established at the time of the offensive conduct. … Because the threshold requirement of establishing a constitutional violation is not met, the qualified immunity analysis necessarily terminates at this point.

Bloem v. Unknown Department of the Interior Employees

920 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2013

“The doctrine of 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 … Herman, 983 F.2d 107, 110 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding a “clearly established liberty interest” for qualified-immunity purposes where trial court had issued order suspending defendant’s prison sentence, and finding it “not

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.