Case law

Borgman v. Kedley

646 F.3d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers from civil liability for any action that does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Young v. … When determining whether a state official is entitled to qualified immunity, we decide whether the alleged facts demonstrate that his conduct violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established

Jenkins v. Talladega City Board of Education

95 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

the Anderson Court’s clarification of the appropriate level of generality at which a right must be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. … Justice was decided a few days after the events at issue here and, therefore, does not clearly establish the law in this case for qualified immunity purposes.

Williams v. Fedor

69 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1999

established,” *673 qualified immunity to the law enforcement officers was granted. … Although the right against self-incrimination is itself clearly established, Perschau is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity ‘[so long as his] decision was reasonable, even if mistaken.’

Hare ex rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

22 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Constitutional Injury In reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taught that the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has asserted

Hemphill v. Kincheloe

987 F.2d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 1993

Prison officials who have implemented a digital rectal probe policy are entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of the clearly established law at the time, a reasonable official could have believed that his conduct was … To determine whether this standard is satisfied, we recently established a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Stephen C. Stem v. Ralph Ahearn and Chris Card

908 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

To hold the child protective services workers personally liable here, Stem must pierce the qualified immunity that they inherently enjoy by demonstrating that the workers breached “clearly established statutory or constitutional … We rejected the TDHS workers’ claim of entitlement to absolute immunity, however, for fear of immunizing intentional violations of clearly established law.

Briaheen Thomas v. Tice

948 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 15, 2020

“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.” … As the Majority notes, qualified immunity does not shield a government official where she has “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

Torres Ocasio v. Melendez

283 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 16, 2003

Furthermore, Defendants also assert their entitlement to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity constitutes a right not to stand trial or face the burdens of litigation. See Saucier v. … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

William Sullivan v. City of Round Rock, Tex

837 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 2016

First, it “decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively un- reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit—not merely a defense to liability for civil damages—“insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Melba J. Burrell v. The Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, Jacob L. Goldstein, Etc., and Alva L. Baggarly, Etc., Melba J. Burrell v. The Bd. Of Trustees of Ga. Military College, Alva L. Baggarly, Individually & in His Official Capacity as Chief Exec. Officer of First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. Of Milledgeville, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Milledgeville and Unknown Co-Conspirators, James E. Baugh, Indiv. & in His Official Capacities as Mayor of the City of Milledgeville, Ga. & Chairman of the Bd. Of Tr. Of Ga. Military College, Jacob L. Goldstein, Indiv. & in His Official Capacities as a Member of the Bd. Of Dir. Of First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. Of Milledgeville & as a Member of the Bd. Of Tr. Of Ga. Military College, Melba J. Burrell v. The Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, James E. Baugh, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, Jacob L. Goldstein, as a Member of the Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, and the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Milledgeville, Alva L. Baggarly, Etc.

970 F.2d 785 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 29, 1992

facts, if true, constitute a violation of clearly established law by the defendant[s]." … B. 45 In part II B., we established that public officials cannot assert qualified immunity against a section 1985(3) claim.

Plowman v. United States Department of the Army

698 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 19, 1988

The balance struck in the qualified immunity standard encourages expeditious termination of meritless suits against government officials when their actions do not implicate clearly established rights. … Here, Is-bell’s actions did not implicate a clearly established constitutional right, nor were his actions inconsistent with any such right. He is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

Engblom v. Carey

572 F. Supp. 44 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … established” at the time of the events in question and therefore that the defendants are protected by a qualified immunity and entitled to summary judgment.

Cantrell v. Morris

849 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2006

Kellogg also quoted the standard for qualified immunity as stated by the U.S. … Supreme Court: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Rivas v. Freeman

940 F.2d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

In Harlow , the Supreme Court further stated that if the law regarding an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail. … The district court denied the deputies’ claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Herbert Liverman v. City of Petersburg

844 F.3d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 15, 2016

contours of protected speech in this area were not clearly established. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v.

Bowling v. Rector

584 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 2009

clearly established law.” … “Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Id.

Clement v. Gomez

298 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

Resolving the issue of qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … Clearly Established Law The qualified immunity analysis requires us to further consider whether the rights of the prisoners in this case were clearly established at the time of *906 incident.

Elliott v. Linnell

561 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 17, 2007

“The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry.” Id. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Id. (citation omitted). … “Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Id. (citation omitted).

Schiff v. Kerrigan

625 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 2, 1986

The term "qualified immunity" has often been used interchangeably with the term “good faith immunity." … The defendants must therefore be immune if their exercise of this discretion did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. 10 .

Brown v. City of Golden Valley

574 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 22, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Our second inquiry in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established. Whether the facts alleged support such a claim is a legal question for the court to decide.