Case law

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."

Latetia Nunley v. Blayne Newton

117 F.4th 1059 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … “[T]o determine whether [Newton] violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.

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

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

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

Olufemi Anthony Lukan v. North Forest Isd, Gloria S. Scott, L v. Brisco

183 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 1999

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1052 (5th Cir.1998). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See id.

Harold Fish v. Tim Brown

838 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

government official; so, qualified immunity applies. … Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1165 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[A] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

John Young v. Mercer County Commission

849 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

“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 … “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.”

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

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?

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.

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.