Case law

Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. v. Raphael

830 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2011

The 11th Amendment does not bar this claim. c) Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that they are immune from suit in this instance because of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity from monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that would be known to a reasonable public officer

Loynachan v. Smiley

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2024

Qualified immunity is a 25 question of law to be decided by the court. … Clearly Established Right 5 Still, qualified immunity applies if the violated 6 constitutional right was not clearly established.

Rivas v. Freeman

940 F.2d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

In Harlow , the Supreme Court further stated that if the law regarding an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail. … The district court denied the deputies’ claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Lyons v. City of Xenia

90 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2004

Because we conclude as a matter of law that Officer Keith did not violate any clearly-established constitutional rights, we reverse the district court’s judgment denying her qualified immunity. … defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

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

Hernandez v. Gates

100 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The City Council defendants claim that there is no clearly established law indicating that their actions were unlawful, and that they therefore have qualified immunity from suit in this case.

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

Montana v. Patterson

894 S.W.2d 812 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Dec 28, 1994

Appellees claimed qualified or “good faith” immunity to actions brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 , and cited Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Once the Appellees have asserted the qualified immunity and established that the alleged wrongful acts were taken within the scope of their discretionary authority, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to show that qualified

State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Attorney-General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and Nathan R. Lyle, in his Individual Capacity, and in his Capacity as an Employee of the West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit v. The Honorable Kenneth D. Ballard, Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanwaha County, and Hisel Bailey, and West Virginia Attorney-General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and Nathan R. Lyle, in his Individual Capacity, and in his Capacity as an Employee of the West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit v. Hisel Bailey

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2023

Ed. 2d 272 (2001) (establishing that qualified immunity may only be overcome if the facts alleged “show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right”). … When discretionary acts are the basis for a claim of liability, qualified immunity applies unless clearly established and reasonably known rights or laws have been violated, or the subject conduct is fraudulent, malicious

Ex Parte Colagross

674 So. 2d 1315 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 9, 1996

McIntosh-Wilson, 582 So.2d 1058, 1061 (Ala.1991), Justice Adams wrote: "In their individual capacities, however, state officials may be liable for damages resulting from discretionary acts that violate `clearly established … In order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff `bears the burden of showing that "the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions."'" 582

Michael Thomas Wilson v. Barry A. Kittoe, and Anthony S. Tokach

337 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

Under the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a “clearly established ... right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For the foregoing reasons, Wilson has alleged the violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed. AFFIRMED 1 .

Guerrero v. Deane

750 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity 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 … For purposes of the clearly established inquiry, “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Basile v. Elizabethtown Area School District

61 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1999

The Supreme Court established the standard for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … (a) were clearly established.

McGinnis v. District of Columbia

65 F. Supp. 3d 203 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2014

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Butera v. … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates that right.” Shaw, 944 F.

Brenda Cook v. Amos Taylor

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Feb 22, 2021

“Waiver is a matter of law where the material facts and circumstances are undisputed or clearly established.” Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Hampton, 227 So. 3d 1138, 1141 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Bott v. … 9 judgment based upon a qualified immunity affirmative defense.

Hannah Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary

989 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified immunity is a defense that “shields government officials from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brickey v. … needing to consider the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Bouye v. Marshall

102 F. Supp. 2d 1357 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 21, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields government officials executing discretionary responsibilities from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Marshall violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Beier v. Lewiston, City Of

354 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

The Supreme Court reasoned that the consequences of such an argument would be "intolerable," because the qualified immunity right would be easily defeated as long as the complaint alleges violation of one clearly established … Clearly Established Right 43 " `[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means that `[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Latetia Nunley v. Blayne Newton

117 F.4th 1059 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … “[T]o determine whether [Newton] violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.

Grady v. Becker

907 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 13, 2012

Qualified immunity principles Qualified immunity insulates government officials from suit when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … These cases simply highlight that the law in the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established prior to Chambers . Cf.