Case law

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 .

Long v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority

1 Am. Tribal Law 385 · Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court · Dec 5, 1997

The Discriminatory Employment Practices Ordinance further establishes two types of matters which may be brought to The Gaming Disputes Court, Claims and Appeals, and those qualified to file either one are strictly and narrowly … Section 502 of Mohegan Tribal Ordinance 95-4, which established the Gaming Disputes Court, specifies that nothing in the ordinance establishing the Gaming Disputes Court “shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity

Shipp v. McMahon

234 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 2000

’s assertion of qualified immunity. … Thus, we find that Shipp articulates a clearly established right under the minimum requirements of Rule 12(b)(6).3 Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must show that the defendant

Thomas Moran v. Anne Marie Clark

359 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

Appellants assert that the law was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001), the fact remains that qualified immunity is reserved for state -4- officials whose conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established

A.S. ex rel. J.S. v. Reaves

1 So. 3d 980 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2008

Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or … Fitzgerald and concluded that the constitutional right violated in that case was a clearly established one.

Sprague v. City of Burley

109 Idaho 656 · Idaho Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1985

If the law was clearly established, the *666 immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … The United States Supreme Court in Harlow has established a threshold test that must be met by the plaintiff, if the defendant has asserted the affirmative defense of a qualified immunity, before a defendant’s motion for

Haley v. City of Boston

677 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 2009

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.

Thad Delaughter v. Ronald Woodall

909 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2018

Clearly established law Having established that summary judgment on the first prong was incorrect, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, if the fact issues under prong one were resolved in Delaughter’s favor, Hatten’s conduct would violate clearly established law and he would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Barton v. Curtis

497 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2007

(2) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.” … 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 would have known

Bash v. Patrick

608 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 9, 2009

Qualified Immunity: General Principles Qualified immunity protects government officers sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Case law need not arise out of factually identical situations to clearly establish law for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1351 .

Wiggins v. Griffin

86 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 20, 2023

Qualified Immunity We next turn to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 279 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Summary 19 judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate because it was clearly established law at the time of the alleged

Anthony Brown v. Rodney Strain, Jr.

663 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Day v. City of Indianapolis

380 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability for acts done in their official capacity, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights to which a reasonable … The law has clearly established this conduct as violative and therefore precludes the officers from qualified immunity.

Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft

580 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

AUKidd’s Right Was “Clearly Established.” … Ohio, was certainly clearly established.

Blankenship v. Manchin

410 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 18, 2006

Clearly Established Law The question under this second and final step in the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a reasonable [official] could have believed [the challenged conduct] to be lawful, in light of clearly established … It is important to note that the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes not only when “the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,” but .also when “pre-existing law” makes the “unlawfulness

Tubar v. Clift

453 F. Supp. 2d 1252 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2006

This “qualified immunity” is determined in two steps. … Moreover, the officer in Acosta was denied qualified immunity because the law at the time of the incident in that case was also “clearly established.”

Milward v. Shaheen

148 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 29, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects municipal officers from liability in § 1983 actions as long as their conduct does- not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)); A right may be clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity in one of three ways: “1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing

Kelley v. LaForce

288 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 8, 2002

immunity so long as their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … qualified immunity).

Johnson v. Williams

699 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2010

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it “is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Thompson v. Eason

258 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2003

“The bifurcated test for qualified immunity asks whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right and, if so, whether the defendants’] conduct was objectively unreasonable.” Palmer v. … in light of that then clearly established law.”