Case law

Curtis Henderson v. Michael P. Lane and J. Gallassi, Curtis Henderson v. Michael P. Lane and J. Gallassi

979 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Williams v. … Thus, there is no “clearly established” right to more than one hour of exercise per week, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Hudson v. Hall

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

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

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."

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.”

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

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).

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.

Garcia v. Montford Unit

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 16, 2024

Motion on Qualified Immunity Defendant appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in her answer to the complaint. (Doc. 34). … .”’); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

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

Cranford v. Kluttz

278 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2017

established” for qualified immunity purposes. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

Lynch v. City of Boston

989 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 9, 1997

A defense of qualified immunity ordinarily fails where the law that was violated was clearly established, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … depends on the concept of a “clearly established” right.

J.R. v. Gloria

599 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 26, 2009

The second qualified immunity prong examines whether the contours of this right were clearly established in 1996. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … Even if this final parameter of the right was clearly established *202 in 1996, Defendants Gloria and Terry are still entitled to qualified immunity because, under the third and final prong, each would have an objectively

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

Tellier v. Fields

230 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

of clearly established rights. … Judge improperly rejected defendants’ qualified, immunity defense because Tellier failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Mendez-Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt

813 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

not “clearly established.” … The district courts in the cases presently before us concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Elrod and Branti clearly established that the first amendment protects government employees from

Knussman v. State of Maryland

272 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2001

Public officials “are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Hensley v. Suttles

167 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2016

In response, these Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In their summary judgment opening brief, the Defendants make no arguments beyond public official immunity/qualified immunity.

Dahly v. DCFS

876 So. 2d 1245 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 2, 2004

Qualified immunity from a federal civil rights claim means that government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Geoghegan, 702 So.2d 517, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (describing the two-step analysis of a qualified immunity defense).

Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority

161 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1998

(en banc), cert. denied , — - U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 412 , 139 L.Ed.2d 315 (1997) (explaining that decisions from only these courts clearly establish the law for the purposes of qualified immunity). … immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including one under state law, or must the clearly established right be the federal right