Case law

Loynachan v. Smiley

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2024

Qualified immunity is a 25 question of law to be decided by the court. … Clearly Established Right 5 Still, qualified immunity applies if the violated 6 constitutional right was not clearly established.

Schmelz v. Monroe County

954 F.2d 1540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1992

Good faith qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government employees from suit for actions that “ ‘legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated’ ” and the public interest would … Once qualified immunity is asserted by the defendants, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established that the defendants’ acts rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” Edwards, 867 F.2d at 1275 .

Phoenix v. Reddish

175 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 19, 2001

Clearly Established Duty Phoenix argues in opposition to Carr’s claim of qualified immunity that he had a duty to intervene to prevent the police officers from violating her fourth amendment rights and that he violated that … Because Carr did not have a clearly established constitutional duty to intervene, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Kelly v. Jones

148 F. Supp. 3d 395 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2015

The right in question was clearly established, such that qualified immunity is unwarranted. ‘ Defendants argue that Officer Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right allegedly violated was not … clearly established at the time Officer Jones acted.

Breuder v. Board of Trustees

238 F. Supp. 3d 1054 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 2017

Defeating qualified immunity requires (1) conduct violating the plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights that is (2) clearly established at the time of the violation such that a “reasonable official would understand … Here, the Individual Defendants claim that, even if there was a violation, it was not clearly established.

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2009

The reasoning behind this departure from the general rule is that qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to … at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Soto v. Coughlin

666 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1987

The defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for the conduct alleged in the complaint on the ground that the alleged conduct did not, at the time it occurred, violate clearly established law … Qualified immunity from liability is available to executive officials in their personal capacity only if the conduct at issue was not a clearly established violation of law at the time the conduct occurred, and only with

Ellen Storck v. City of Coral Springs

354 F.3d 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2003

[are] specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total absence of case law. … In short, we are satisfied that Storck failed to establish a constitutional violation, and that even if she did, she has not shown that it was “clearly established,” within the meaning of qualified immunity analysis.

Griffin, Jr. v. Garrison

2011 DNH 008 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 13, 2011

Garrison is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged “‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Conkey v. Reno

885 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, D. Nevada · May 4, 1995

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken in the performance of discretionary functions when their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Conkey of property without due process of law on the basis of qualified immunity. The complaint alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Simkunas v. Tardi

720 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1989

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Furthermore, in summary judgment situations where qualified immunity is at issue, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the allegedly “clearly established constitutional right.”

In Re Barbara H. Allen, Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Donna Willis, Party in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest

106 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997

51 We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

DePace v. Flaherty

183 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2002

Creighton, to say that the contours of a right must be clearly established “is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.” 31 … Flaherty still would be entitled to qualified immunity, despite the fact that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law, if it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate DePace

Hunsberger v. Wood

564 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 3, 2008

immunity analysis and answers the question of whether the right was clearly established. … immunity, but private parties do not have qualified immunity.

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

Joseph v. Kimple

343 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · May 10, 2004

Joseph therefore can pierce Kimple’s qualified immunity defense by showing that the law was clearly established yet Kimple violated it. … As of 10/8/99 (the day Kimple swore the warrant out), it was clearly established law that a police officer would not be protected by qualified immunity if he applied for an arrest warrant where “a reasonably well-trained

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not “ 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did *627 not offer a rational explanation for basing

TEICHBERG v. Smith

734 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 17, 2010

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … Even if the seizure of the backpack was unreasonable, Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Ex Parte Colagross

674 So. 2d 1315 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 9, 1996

McIntosh-Wilson, 582 So.2d 1058, 1061 (Ala.1991), Justice Adams wrote: "In their individual capacities, however, state officials may be liable for damages resulting from discretionary acts that violate `clearly established … In order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the 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."'" 582

Roybal-Mack v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety

286 F. Supp. 3d 1226 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 12, 2017

If the plaintiff fails to establish either part of the two-part inquiry, the court must grant the defendants qualified immunity. Id. … Whether Law Was Clearly Established The Court need not address whether the law clearly established as the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, having found that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional