Case law

Aversa v. United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 21, 1996

And a federal official is qualifiedly immune from suit for an alleged constitutional tort if his "conduct [did] not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a -3- 3 reasonable person would have known … Qualified immunity, however, must be decided according to the law in effect at the time of the alleged violation -- "implicit in the Harlow formulation . . . is a temporal dimension: the ______ right must have been clearly

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

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

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.”

Parker v. Hyatt

196 N.C. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 21, 2009

Clearly, the legislature intended § 113-136(1) to pertain to all portions of § 113-136 in order to establish constitutional parameters to the authority given to protectors and inspectors. … Based on our determination, we need not address defendant’s argument regarding good faith qualified immunity.

Burns v. PA Department of Corrections

642 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 20, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit even if their actions were unconstitutional as long as those officials‘ actions ―d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to the official claiming it as a 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.

Jamal Stephenson v. John Doe

332 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2003

The court indicated that, depending on the jury's answers to the interrogatories, he might have to "decide whether the law was clearly established and whether qualified immunity would attach." … The court later emphasized that this law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

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

Gordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas

168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 10, 2016

The individual defendants 7 contend they are enti- *1156 tied to qualified immunity from Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims 8 because the conduct alleged fails to state a violation of a clearly established federal right of … But the former UALR employees — Norwood and Peterson— are also entitled to qualified immunity if Gordon fails to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Marc Hall v. Ramsey County

801 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 14, 2015

“In [section] 1983 claims, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … See Vaughn, 253 F.3d at 1128 (holding a government official is entitled to qualified immunity if a constitutional right is not “clearly established at the time of the” alleged violation).

Pindell v. Wilson-McKee

60 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Aug 17, 1999

IV The standard for consideration of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is as follows: Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Sharnick v. D'Archangelo

935 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 22, 2013

reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” … If the law was “clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily ... fail[s], since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v.

Alexander v. Newman

345 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Nov 22, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim. … “Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Goad,

James Byron Green v. Margaret Baron, Joan Wright, Sherri Shea, Dr. R.T. Lara, and Gary Kirchhof

925 F.2d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 6, 1991

To determine if the employees are entitled to qualified immunity, we must first decide whether Green has invoked a constitutional right that was clearly established when the conduct in question occurred. See Harlow v. … Thus, when Green entered Oakdale, it was clearly established he could not be punished.

William Mariani-Giron v. Heriberto Acevedo-Ruiz, Etc.

877 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

A court must look to the “objective legal reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies. Id. … Acevedo Ruiz argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Mariani Giron’s discharge in March 1985, the law was not clearly established that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement

Jeffrey Cozzi v. Cedrick Thomas

892 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2018

Because Cozzi was arrested without arguable probable cause, “[t]he second qualified immunity inquiry is, in the context of this case, straightforward: our binding precedent clearly established, at the time of [Cozzi’s] … established law and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady

728 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 28, 2013

The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was “clearly established”; and (3) even if the right was “clearly established … In this way, qualified immunity shields official conduct that is “ ‘objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ ” X-Men Sec., Inc. *155 v.

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.”

May v. Fulton County, Ga.

925 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 1995

Qualified immunity may only preclude individual capacity claims. … For a court to find that a plaintiff was deprived of a clearly established right for the purpose of qualified immunity analysis, ‘“[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand