Case law

Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents

159 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 1998

II, doc. 7 at 679 (Dean Jerry entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights); see also id. vol. … Pages and pages of facts are no substitute for citations to clearly established law. Nor can they meet Professor Tonkovich’s burden on qualified immunity.

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

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

979 F.3d 498 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2020

But because her conduct did not violate any clearly established law, qualified immunity protects her. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. … Qualified Immunity. That leaves Helper’s qualified immunity defense against Stockdale and Dunning’s § 1983 claim.

Elizabeth Harvey v. Plains Township Police Department Edward J. Walsh Ronald Dombroski Plains Township Board Joan A. Chukinas

421 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2005

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 is a two step process. First, we must determine whether the defendants violated “clearly established” rights. Id.

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.

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

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

44 F.4th 363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 2022

The district court dismissed her First Amendment infringement claim against various officials on qualified immunity grounds, finding that any violation was not clearly established at the time. … of clearly established law.

Conlogue v. Hamilton

906 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 11, 2018

officials who act incompetently or in disregard of clearly established legal principles. … Qualified immunity inoculates government officials from civil liability based on their discretionary actions and decisions which, although injurious, "do[] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Tisdale v. Gravitt

51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs on the alternative grounds of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … establish a constitutional violation; and second, whether the right violated was clearly established.

Freeman v. Blair

793 F.2d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 4, 1986

The decisions to inspect without a warrant clearly were functions for which Blair and Massa are not entitled to absolute immunity nor, as we conclude below, were the decisions reasonable under clearly established law. … Our task then will be to determine whether the law in the areas implicated in those claims was clearly established at the time of the actions here at issue and thus whether the state officials’ qualified immunity defenses

Ferguson v. Leiter

220 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Bailey v. Iles

78 F.4th 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

DeNieva v. Reyes

966 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Thus, as we stated in Romero , [t]he qualified immunity test necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so ‘clearly established … Did DeNieva Identify a Specific Right, and Was it Clearly Established? We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes’ violation of a clearly established right.

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.

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.

United States Ex Rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff

400 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 15, 2005

If Plaintiffs can do so, they must then show the statutory right was clearly established. Id. … Since Plaintiffs have failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of an FCA violation, the Court need not address the “clearly established law” aspect of the qualified-immunity doctrine.

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

Townsend v. Jefferson County

601 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2010

that the deputies violated her clearly established civil rights. … immunity because Townsend had presented evidence that the deputies violated her clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Barton v. Curtis

497 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2007

(2) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.” … 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