Case law

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.

Freeman v. Gore

483 F.3d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2007

denial of a public official’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.”). … Third, the deputies assert that, in any event, they are entitled to 9 qualified immunity because their actions were not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson’s numerous claims. … was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.

Wall-DeSousa v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

691 F. App'x 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2017

(“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant plead *590 ing qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”). III. … This is because, to survive dismissal in this case, the Wall-DeSousas must additionally allege sufficient facts to overcome the second prong of qualified immunity, i.e., clearly established federal law.

Roberto Valderrama v. Officer Carl Rousseau

780 F.3d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2015

The district court granted their motions in part, but it denied them qualified immunity as to several of the § 1983 claims. The officers now appeal the denial of qualified immunity as to Mr. … clearly established.

PJ Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wagner

603 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2010

The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis ensures that governmental actors are given fair warning that their conduct is unconstitutional before they are held liable for damages based on that conduct … ’ claims of qualified immunity. 2.

McGarr v. City of Peekskill

975 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2013

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “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 … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation, “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the

Devereaux v. Perez

218 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review A district court’s decision that an asserted federal right was “clearly established” such that qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action attached at a particular point in time is a question … Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 931 (1st Cir.1992) (noting that “the dimensions of [the] right [to family integrity] have yet to be clearly established” and applying qualified immunity to suit in which social worker allegedly interfered

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.

Jose Zurita v. Richard Hyde

665 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

Nevertheless, Biang would enjoy qualified immunity as to this claim if applicable law was not clearly established as of July 1, 2004. … In some cases, the district court may conclude that even under the facts presented by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and qualified immunity does not apply.

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S.

281 F. App'x 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity* “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If the right at issue was not clearly established ... then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir.2007).

Brown v. Fogle

819 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bame v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Rebecca Judge v. City of Lowell

160 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 18, 1998

The Court specifically reserved judgment on the question whether its “qualified immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in eases involving individual government officials.” Id. … “This option exists,” the Court went on to state, “even if the official chooses not to plead the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.”

Campbell v. Casey

166 F. Supp. 3d 144 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 29, 2016

Defendant seeks summary judgment' due to qualified immunity as well as on the merits. a. … That right has been clearly established by the U.S. Supreme Court for decades.

TULLIS v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 9, 2023

Additionally, even if a reasonable jury could find an Eighth Amendment violation, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because Tullis has not shown a clearly established right to … Pauly. 137 S.Ct. 548, 551 (2017) ("Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

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.

Dean v. Earle

866 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 28, 1994

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken. … Thus, Officer Ward did not violate Dean’s clearly established constitutional rights and is immune from monetary liability under § 1983.

Nicole K. Brinkman v. City of Des Moines, Iowa

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Oct 11, 2023

Further, whether the law was clearly established is inextricably intertwined with the new qualified immunity defense and only relevant to this case to the 3 The court applied only the particularity and plausibility … Id. at 782−84.  7 extent the new qualified immunity defense is operative in this case, and we already have concluded that qualified immunity is not operative

Stack v. Killian

96 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 1996

Officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken