Case law

Estate of Rudy Escob v. Brian Marti

702 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 13, 2012

When analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether the facts alleged demonstrate a constitu- tional violation, and whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Pearson v. … The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds to the defendant com- manders on the second prong, finding that Escobedo did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be free

Hucker v. City of Beaumont

144 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 18, 2001

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a clearly established constitutional right. See Sie-gert v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. See Tamez v.

Vincent v. City of Sulphur

28 F. Supp. 3d 651 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Oct 21, 2014

In order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts showing “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Bomar v. City of Pontiac

643 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2011

The Supreme Court has distinguished between denials of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage that are based on the district court’s “determination about pre-existing clearly established law” and, on the other hand … But qualified immunity is Main’s defense on the merits.

Chrissy F., by Her Next Friend and Guardian Ad Litem Donna Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare

925 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 1991

defendant violated clearly established law. … to qualified immunity.

Long v. L'ESPERANCE

166 Vt. 566 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 11, 1997

The protection from suit afforded a state employee such as defendant is qualified, not absolute: defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if he was “(1) acting during [his] employment and acting, or reasonably believing … As a general matter, good faith exists if the “official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” Murray v.

Stodghill v. Wellston School District

512 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

The SAB members moved to dismiss the claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The SAB members sought qualified immunity.

Crystal Thompson v. Andrew Dill

930 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2019

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim unless (1) "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right," and (2) the "right was clearly established … When the denial is based on qualified immunity, however, we have limited jurisdiction to decide the purely legal issue of whether the alleged facts support a claim of violation of clearly established law. See Raines v.

John Doe, a Minor, (Born 01/28/90) by His Next Friend Jane Doe Jane Doe, Individually v. State of Hawaii Department of Education, and David Keala

334 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 2003

ANALYSIS A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violates “ ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Koch, 96 F.3d at 1301 (quoting Harlow … If so, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity only if the constitutional right that he allegedly violated was not clearly established. Id. A.

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.

Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi

912 F.3d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 2018

Qualified immunity, again, was not available because the right to be free from punitive detention was already clearly established at the time. Id. at 707. … Once again, qualified immunity was not justified, the Court said, because the right against retaliation was clearly established at the time. Id. at 711-12.

Nolin v. Town of Springville

45 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 22, 1999

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all *907 reasonable … In Lewis , the Supreme Court clarified the rationale behind resolving the substantive issues in a qualified immunity case before addressing the question of whether the law was clearly established at the time of the 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.

Vives v. City of New York

305 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2003

Are the Detectives Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … Coughlin, 137 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir.1998) (reversing grant of qualified immunity where the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, but there was some doubt as to whether a “reasonable official would

Michael C. v. Gresbach

526 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 2008

The defendants responded that their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and that therefore they were protected by qualified immunity. Both parties moved for summary judgment. … If the right was “clearly established,” the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. A.

Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey

44 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Vernon and McKinsey contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the allegations in the complaint do not constitute violations of a clearly established liberty interest protected by the Due Process … clearly established?

Brown v. City of Oneonta

106 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

We hold that because it was unclear whether FERPA’s “emergency exception” allowed release of the list, no clearly established right of plaintiffs was infringed and appellants are entitled to qualified immunity from claims … The function of qualified immunity is to shield from suit those public officials who must make such decisions where, as here, the law is not clear, and no “clearly established right” is infringed.

Doherty v. Rutgers School of Law-Newark

651 F.2d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 1981

The affidavits clearly show that plaintiff would not have been admitted to any of the law schools even if no minority group members had been admitted. … He clearly was qualified for admission and the trial court so found. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, slip op. at 5, No. 31287 (Calif.Super.Ct.

Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

416 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2006

However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Casteel v. Pieschek

3 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits from damages unless their' conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules regarding county jail