Case law

Glass v. Mayas

794 F. Supp. 470 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 16, 1992

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Gilley, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (where the defense of qualified immunity is involved, the initial inquiry should focus on whether plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Estate of Sinthasomphone v. City of Milwaukee

838 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 23, 1993

The majority opinion indicated, however, that they were deciding the qualified immunity issue: whether an obligation was “clearly established,” not whether a constitutional obligation existed. … The three police officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated Konerak Sinthasomphone’s clearly established constitutional rights.

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.

Patrick F. Boyle v. William Burke, Joseph Yergeau, Mark G. Kelliher, Peter Weeks, Ruth Griffin and Raymond Labrie

925 F.2d 497 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 6, 1991

It is enough that the rights of these reservists were not clearly established until the October, 1986 amendment. … Clearly, therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against all such claims whatever the time period involved.

Derfus v. City of Chicago

42 F. Supp. 3d 888 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved * * * when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights

Keith v. Koerner

707 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 12, 2013

was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Koerner qualified immunity. -9- Nevertheless, because we affirm the denial of qualified immunity, we do not reach this issue.

Micah Riggs v. Robert Gibbs

923 F.3d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2019

right was clearly established at the time of the violation, such that a reasonable official would have known that his actions were unlawful.” … “Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established

Brown v. City Of Oneonta

106 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

In addition, appellants claim qualified immunity on the ground that even if release of the list under these circumstances did violate appellees' FERPA rights, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident … The function of qualified immunity is to shield from suit those public officials who must make such decisions where, as here, the law is not clear, and no "clearly established right" is infringed. 67 In addition, Hartmark

Akers v. Caperton

998 F.2d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

(“[A] core issue in resolving the immunity defense is whether state officials violated clearly established legal norms_ Thus, the availability of qualified immunity overlaps substantially the question on the merits of the … Because the defendants’ actions did not violate “clearly established” law at the time of the transfers — and did, in fact, comply with this Circuit’s established law— the district court’s qualified immunity ruling must be

Rogers v. Gooding

84 F. App'x 473 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 24, 2003

Qualified Immunity for the Excessive Force Charges Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … not violate any clearly established principles.

Easterling v. Pollard

528 F. App'x 653 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2013

The individual defendants are protected by the defense of qualified immunity: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The general principles of First Amendment law we have discussed were clearly established in 2010, but the qualified immunity defense turns on whether the application of those principles to the circumstances faced by the defen

Don Waldrop v. David C. Evans, Frank Fodor, M.D., T.G. Smith, M.D.

871 F.2d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 1989

The court then concluded that be *1034 cause a prisoner’s right to psychiatric care was clearly established under the Eighth Amendment, appellants could not rely on the defense of qualified immunity. Id. at 846-47 . … violation of clearly established law.

Trigalet v. Young

54 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 1995

The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Trigalets' substantive due process claim upon concluding that, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established that the officers … The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law under which defendants actions could form the basis of a constitutional claim became clearly established on March 1, 1990, when

Winnie v. Clarke

893 F. Supp. 875 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jul 11, 1995

Qualified Immunity Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless (1) the officials’ conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right; (2) the officials knew or should have known … Furthermore, I found that the plaintiff had a clearly established right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing and that the defendants’ refusal to do so was not protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Hudson v. Town of East Montpelier

161 Vt. 168 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Nov 29, 1993

Defendants first argue that Parker’s acts were discretionary in nature and thus immune under the doctrine of qualified official immunity. … Bd., 125 Vt. 366, 369, 216 A.2d 44, 46 (1965) (distinction “is not clearly defined,” basis of distinction “is difficult to state,” and no established rule exists for determination of what belongs to which class); Marshall

Harris v. Hammon

914 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 19, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles

222 Cal. App. 3d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1990

The County insists the law clearly provides absolute immunity for the conduct in issue here. “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. [Citation.]” … “Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Reynolds v. Smythe

418 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enunciated the qualified immunity inquiry as follows: “First, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights. … Saucier instructs lower courts to examine whether a constitutional right was clearly established in the second-prong of a two-prong qualified immunity inquiry, whereas Harvey examines whether defendants violated a clearly

Ralph and Sharon Hughes v. City of North Olmsted

93 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The individual defendants respond that they are all entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … In the present case, the defendants should have been granted qualified immunity because there is no evidence that the investigation violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Brooks v. Berg

270 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 15, 2003

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at … Accordingly, the Court turns to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.