Case law

Plowman v. United States Department of the Army

698 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 19, 1988

The balance struck in the qualified immunity standard encourages expeditious termination of meritless suits against government officials when their actions do not implicate clearly established rights. … Here, Is-bell’s actions did not implicate a clearly established constitutional right, nor were his actions inconsistent with any such right. He is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Alabama State University

865 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 12, 1994

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be- within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … 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 or, ... the law clearly

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

Ralph Walsh, Jr. v. Lisa Hodge

975 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

Because Walsh’s deprivations of due process were not clearly established constitutional rights, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and RENDER judgment in favor of Defendants. … immunity analysis: was Walsh’s constitutional right clearly established?

Hanson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department

991 F. Supp. 1059 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Thus, Sheriff Williamson asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity because there were no clearly established constitutional standards on the date when the alleged violations occurred.

Julian Betton v. David Belue

942 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 5, 2019

Officer Belue appeals only the court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … The burden of establishing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity rests on the party seeking to invoke it. Id.

Hartsfield v. Lemacks

50 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1995

This court utilizes a two-part analysis for the defense of qualified immunity. … In Lassiter, we explained that for law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “pre-existing law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion

Ford v. Moore

237 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity A defendant official is entitled to. qualified immunity if (1) the defendant’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

Phoenix v. Reddish

175 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 19, 2001

Clearly Established Duty Phoenix argues in opposition to Carr’s claim of qualified immunity that he had a duty to intervene to prevent the police officers from violating her fourth amendment rights and that he violated that … Because Carr did not have a clearly established constitutional duty to intervene, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Solis v. Prince George's County

153 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

Qualified Immunity under 12 U.S.C. § 1983 Under § 1983, state officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the Court finds that Officer Ruffin has not established an entitlement to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim. b.

Bell v. Dawson

144 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2001

As discussed above, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from *461 liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Shipp v. McMahon

199 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2000

’s assertion of qualified immunity. … Thus, courts engage in a two-step analysis to address claims of qualified immunity. *262 First, to show that a right is clearly established, the plaintiff does not have to refer to precedent that is directly on point, or

Buck v. City of Albuquerque

549 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 9, 2008

entitlement to qualified immunity. … Third, he urges that, even if the officers did not have probable cause to arrest, he is protected by qualified immunity’s second prong, because the right of the Arrested Plaintiffs was not clearly established.

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not “ 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did *627 not offer a rational explanation for basing

Torres Ocasio v. Melendez

283 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 16, 2003

Furthermore, Defendants also assert their entitlement to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity constitutes a right not to stand trial or face the burdens of litigation. See Saucier v. … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

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.

Stinebaugh v. City of Wapakoneta

630 F. App'x 522 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

Thus, Stinebaugh established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis — that his First Amendment rights were violated. See City of Elyria, 502 F.3d at 491 . B. Clearly Established Law. … “To determine whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, this court look[s] first to decisions of the Supreme Court, then to decisions of this court and other courts within our circuit, and

Mucci v. Town of North Providence ex rel. Vallee

815 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity Officer defendants are shielded from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as to these claims.

Ruffins v. Department of Correctional Services

907 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 2, 2012

Legal Standard Government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would have been objectively … Cuomo, 465 Fed.Appx. 42, 45 (2d Cir.2012) (defendants entitled to qualified immunity because “neither clearly established principles of double jeopardy nor due process prohibited defendants from administratively imposing