Case law

Melvin Alexander, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Lamar Alexander, Governor

706 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 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. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at-, 102 S.Ct. at 2737, and proving either that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged injury, or, if the law was clearly established, that he neither knew nor should have

Reginald R. Early v. Keith Crockett, Clayborn Carroll, Roberta Lewis, and Lamon Mayo

2019 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2019

Appellees, as state employees, are protected by qualified immunity. See Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-305 (Supp. 2017). State employees’ qualified immunity extends to section 1983 claims. See Robinson v. … Under the standard of qualified immunity, a government official will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right of which a reasonable person would

Washington Square Post 1212 American Legion v. Maduro

907 F.2d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 28, 1990

a warrantless entry, or closed to non-Post members, in which case it was clearly established that a warrant was necessary. … DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1291 stitutional

Dees v. Vendel

856 F. Supp. 1531 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 27, 1994

clearly established when the violation occurred.” … with clearly established law.

Getlin v. Zoll

707 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 20, 2010

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 of which … “Police officers generally enjoy a qualified immunity from liability for their discretionary actions if their conduct does not ‘violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ or if it is

Afifi v. Holder

101 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2015

Qualified Immunity Shields the Individual Defendants from the Plaintiff’s Bivens Claims “Qualified immunity is ‘a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly … Howards, the Supreme Court declined to accept the proposition that a Circuit’s own authority can be the dispositive source of clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. See 132 S.

Coffin v. Brandau

609 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

To strip the Deputies of qualified immunity, the Coffins must have had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from a warrantless entry of their garage or warrantless arrest therein. … Therefore, we conclude that the Deputies’ “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of *1214 qualified immunity.” McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249 . IV.

Whitfield v. City of Philadelphia

587 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2008

Second, if the answer is yes, the court must then determine “ ‘whether the right was clearly established.’ ” Id. … In considering the second prong of the Saucier test, the Third Circuit clarified that “[a] right is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Hassan Shabazz v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Commissioner, and Harold J. Smith, Superintendent

852 F.2d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The defendants’ answer alleged as affirmative defenses, inter alia, that damages were barred by qualified immunity and by the Eleventh Amendment. They moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … This court recently reiterated that qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Miles v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500

347 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 16, 2018

Castillo is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Last, Ms. Castillo contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which

Glow In One Mini Golf, LLC v. Tim Walz

37 F.4th 1365 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

“Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability,” and “[t]o avoid pretrial dismissal, a plaintiff must present facts showing the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established … capacity of businesses deemed non-critical—was a taking under clearly established law.

Brittany J. Buckley v. Hennepin County

9 F.4th 757 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 2021

immunity, (v) the physician defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “because the Court has seen no evidence that designing, implementing, and overseeing the ketamine studies violated a clearly established right,” and … “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

Roman Catholic Foundation v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

590 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 16, 2008

The reason plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary relief is because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 The reason that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is because their view that the Establishment Clause … Such liability, in turn, depends on whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 .

McCormick v. City of Lawrence

325 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 24, 2004

Even if the court were to proceed to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court would determine that it is not clearly established that Plaintiffs were- engaging in protected speech. … See Camfield, 248 F.3d at 1228 (citing Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 530 (holding that qualified immunity was proper when the plaintiff failed to cite any case law showing that the law was clearly established)).

Morris v. Jackson

353 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 10, 2005

However, qualified immunity does extend to this decision. … Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for injury arising from discretionary acts as long as the acts do not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Bryant v. Louisville Metro Hous. Auth.

568 S.W.3d 839 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

Louisville Metro, then, is clearly cloaked in sovereign immunity. … Juanita Mitchell is entitled to official qualified immunity Because we have held that LMHA is an immune entity, we must determine whether Mitchell is, therefore, extended qualified official immunity for her actions as a government

Riebsame v. Prince

267 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 9, 2003

Deputy Prince is entitled to qualified immunity from Count III of Rieb-same’s complaint. Riebsame has not shown that Deputy Prince violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory law. … Riebsame has not proved that Sheriff Williams violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. No genuine issue of material fact remains as to Sheriff Williams’ qualified immunity. D.

Brenda Mattox and Dona Holly v. City of Forest Park Stephen Vollmar, Police Chief Ray Hodges and Kenneth Hughes

183 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 1999

immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law. … First Amendment Retaliation The qualified immunity inquiry entails a determination of whether the law allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue.

Rodriguez-Cruz v. Trujillo

443 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 11, 2006

Immunity Lastly, defendant raises the qualified immunity defense. … Thus, “qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced.” Burke v.

In Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation

874 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1995

of a qualified immunity defense. … The task of determining what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity has been accurately labeled a “labyrinth”. See Long v. Norris, 929 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir.1991).