Case law

Brown v. Grabowski

922 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1991

Anderson's strict elaboration of Harlow, establishing that an official is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, unless the right that the official is alleged to have violated is both clearly established … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Shafer v. City of Boulder

896 F. Supp. 2d 915 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 12, 2012

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 person … “When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles gov *933 erning the conduct

Ex Parte Sawyer

876 So. 2d 433 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 5, 2003

and the § 1983 claim against her on the basis of qualified immunity. … and qualified immunity.

Frias v. Demings

823 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 14, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The second step in determining whether qualified immunity applies is whether the law was “clearly established.” Gonzalez, 325 F.3d at 1234 .

Barkes Ex Rel. Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.

766 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 2014

See id. at 678 (“In the context of determining whether there is a violation of clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required to impose Bivens liability on the subordinate … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Theresa Kitzman-Kelley, Guardian for and on Behalf of Melissa Kitzman-Kelley v. Donald Warner, Gary T. Morgan, and Gordon Johnson

203 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2000

Although clearly recognizing that the issue of qualified immunity may, in some instances, be resolved at the pleadings stage of the litigation, the district court determined that such an adjudication would be inappropriate … Qualified immunity protects government officials from monetary liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Hans Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Constructors, Inc., and W.J. Terry

834 F.2d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 16, 1987

Thus, the flaw in the reasoning of Bothke I was that the panel examined Terry’s qualified immunity in a Bivens action by looking to see if she had violated Bothke’s clearly established statutory rights. … If Bothke had a clearly established constitutional right to have his March 15 letter construed as a request for abatement, then Terry’s right to assert qualified immunity would depend on the objective reasonableness of Terry

Janet Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach

707 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2013

The district court denied the defendant officers qualified immunity on the claim, reasoning that although their initial entry did not violate Feliciano’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, they plainly exceeded … The district court rejected the officers’ claims for qualified immunity, but solely on the ground that the scope of their search, particularly of the underwear drawer and kitchen pantry, violated Feliciano’s clearly established

Zimmerman v. Spears

428 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 3, 1977

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY The Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the Judicial Defendants and the record in SA-76-CA-152 clearly show that their actions were well within the scope of their judicial duties. … Even under this qualified good faith immunity, these defendants are immune from suit.

Roman Catholic Foundation v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

590 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 16, 2008

The reason plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary relief is because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 The reason that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is because their view that the Establishment Clause … Such liability, in turn, depends on whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 .

Lawrence J. Korb v. John F. Lehman, Jr. Everett Pyatt Melvyn R. Paisley, and Carl M. Smith

919 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 1991

It decided, therefore, that “plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim of violation of clearly-established law and defendants are ... protected by qualified immunity.” Mitchell v. … The district court, therefore, was correct in finding that the appellees did not violate “clearly established” law and were thus protected from suit by qualified immunity.

Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez

790 F.3d 99 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 17, 2015

right was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation. … AFFIRMED. 5 The district court also decided the qualified immunity issue by finding that there was no plausible deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. -18-

Tessler v. Paterson

768 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 2011

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a clearly established constitutional right.

Lelieve v. Oroso

846 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2012

Therefore, the burden shifts to Lelieve to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense. B. Alleged Constitutional Violations 1. … In sum, Lelieve has not met his burden to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense.

Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico

890 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 13, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials engaging in discretionary activities from personal liability, unless a reasonable official would have known that his or her actions would violate a “clearly established” constitutional … Defendants contend that if there exists a cause of action for same-sex harassment, it is not “clearly established.” On this basis, they argue that they are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity.

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.”

Barrett v. Board of Education

13 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2014

Qualified immunity. … The last two prongs of the qualified immunity test turn on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Cole v.

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.

Jones v. Cannon

174 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 1999

As discussed, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions unless the officer has violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable police officer would have known. … This Circuit has held that dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996); see also Adams v. St.

Haggerty v. Texas Southern University

391 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2004

Jurisdiction over this Appeal “Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly … established law.”