Case law

Simkunas v. Tardi

720 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1989

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Furthermore, in summary judgment situations where qualified immunity is at issue, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the allegedly “clearly established constitutional right.”

William Sullivan v. City of Round Rock, Tex

837 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 2016

First, it “decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively un- reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit—not merely a defense to liability for civil damages—“insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Henry E. Parrish Yvonne L. Parrish v. Donald Mallinger Richard Larkin Crispus Nix

133 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 7, 1998

Qualified immunity shields prison officials from damage liability unless they “violate clearly es tablished statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Whether a broad constitutional right such as due process is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes is a particularized inquiry: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Dr. Earl Evans v. W.H. "Sonny" Dillahunty and William E. Amos, in Their Official Capacities

711 F.2d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

As the Supreme Court held in Harlow , “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Moreover, “[r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by references to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial

Elliott v. Cheshire County, NH

750 F. Supp. 1146 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 9, 1990

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … the defendants qualified immunity.

Lord v. Murphy

561 A.2d 1013 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 12, 1989

The defendants by their answer asserted, inter alia, the defense of absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … In Mitchell , the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity, similar to absolute immunity, is an entitlement of “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Soto v. Coughlin

666 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1987

The defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for the conduct alleged in the complaint on the ground that the alleged conduct did not, at the time it occurred, violate clearly established law … Qualified immunity from liability is available to executive officials in their personal capacity only if the conduct at issue was not a clearly established violation of law at the time the conduct occurred, and only with

Navajo Housing Authority v. Johns

11 Am. Tribal Law 31 · Navajo Nation Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2012

, as Dana clearly intended. … However, the provision was, without doubt, part of the larger statutory scheme that established NHA as a public body.

Ricciuti v. Gyzenis

832 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 28, 2011

Finally, the individual defendants claim qualified immunity, arguing that their conduct was not prohibited by clearly established law at the time of Ms. Ricciuti’s termination. … There is no small irony in the fact that the Second Circuit’s qualified immunity case law is itself not "clearly established.”

Wilson v. State

84 Wash. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1996

A plaintiff seeking to rebut a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct interfered with a clearly established constitutional right. White, 78 Wn. App. at 837 . … Thus, Wilson has failed to show that defendants interfered with his "clearly established” constitutional free speech rights. Consequently, the individual defendants may claim the defense of qualified immunity.

Harold Fish v. Tim Brown

838 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

government official; so, qualified immunity applies. … Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1165 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[A] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and

Thomas Bowden v. Vernon Martin

807 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

Public officials are immune from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We need not address the separate question of whether any infringed right was clearly established, although we note that the qualified immunity inquiry is not identical to the question of probable cause: an official enjoys

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.

Horne v. Crozier

565 N.W.2d 50 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1997

To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time. Harlow v. … . [¶ 7] Law enforcement officers will be shielded by qualified immunity if (1) their conduct violates no clearly established constitutional or statutory rights; or (2) it is objectively reasonable for them to believe their

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.”

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.

S.P. v. City of Takoma Park

134 F.3d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 15, 1998

Thus, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, Peller must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” in more than just a general sense. … to qualified immunity.

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

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