Case law

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

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.

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.

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

Brown v. Office of State Comptroller

211 F. Supp. 3d 455 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2016

Third, defendants contend that, even if Brown’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, the law at issue is not clearly established and thus they are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Courts typically frame the qualified immunity analysis by requiring the defendant to establish one of two conditions: that “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable

Tamela Muir v. Decatur County, Iowa

917 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

established federal rights.’” … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · May 8, 2024

any clearly established law. . . . … clearly established right of the Plaintiffs to which General Helper is alleged to have violated.”

Aceto v. Kachajian

240 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 24, 2003

Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from section 1983 civil liability so long *124 as they ‘acted reasonably under settled law in the circumstances.’ ” Veilleux v. … Clearly Established Right Because the factual allegations — if true — show defendants violated a constitutional right, the critical question is whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

Mee v. Ortega

967 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

Accordingly, “summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established.” Rex v. … Ortega on the basis of qualified immunity. “[T]he plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract and allege that the defendant has violated it.” Hilliard v.

Myers v. Patterson

819 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 11, 2016

Without evidence regarding the grounds for Patterson’s decision, we are unable to determine whether his actions were contrary to,.clearly established law. … Given that Patterson, upon his motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, has faded to show facts that would entitle him to qualified immunity, we would ordinarily simply reverse the grant of qualified immunity and

Kely Wilkins, Individually and as the Successor in Interest to Decedent William Alberto Wilkins William Alberto Wilkins, Individually the Estate of William Wilkins William Randolph Wilkins, a Minor, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kely Wilkins Fernando Wilkins, Individually Josefina Wilkins, Individually v. City of Oakland v. Tim Scarrott, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland Andrew Koponen, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland

350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where `clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers' actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.

Kenneth Harold Swipies v. Frank Kofka

348 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 3, 2003

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v. … We review the denial of a summary judgment motion claiming qualified immunity only to the extent the denial turns on an issue of law. See Behrens v.

Wayne Powell, as of the Estate of Dana Kimberly Devilla v. Sunny Schriver, Superintendent Thomas A. Coughlin, III C.O. Lynch C.O. Crowley

175 F.3d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 2, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The Eighth Amendment Claim The district court dismissed Devil-la’s Eighth Amendment claim on the ground of qualified immunity, reasoning that “it was not clearly established as of this incident in 1991 that a corrections

Pahls v. Thomas

718 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 4, 2013

For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiff’s clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some … See Dodds, 614 F.3d at 1194 (“In conducting qualified immunity analysis . . . , courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, the plaintiff’s clearly established rights were violated.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

584 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2008

In general, qualified immunity applies when government officials’ conduct in performing discretionary functions “does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The Saucier Test For Qualified Immunity In Saucier v.

Anthony Davila v. Robin Gladden

777 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2015

Here, we begin and end our qualified immunity analysis with the second question—whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the Defendants violated Mr. Davila’s constitutional rights. … Campos does not therefore clearly establish a right under RFRA in the Eleventh Circuit. For those reasons, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. So even if Mr.

Bagg v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

726 S.W.2d 582 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 8, 1987

However, to protect officials from groundless section 1983 suits, the federal courts have recognized what is known as qualified good faith immunity. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Norton v. Rodrigues

955 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

by the Eighth Amendment and whether that right was clearly established at the relevant time). … Accordingly, to determine whether Rodrigues may have violated a clearly-established right and therefore may not be entitled to qualified immunity, we focus on the portions of the record that could reasonably be read to

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.