Case law

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

Long v. Norris

929 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 1991

established" for purposes of qualified immunity. … established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.

Salvato Ex Rel. Estate of Salvato v. Miley

790 F.3d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2015

We affirm the denial of Miley’s motion for qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings. … Miley Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Elfers v. Varnau

101 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2015

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The court held that because this right was not “clearly established,” the coroner was entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim brought after the wrong body was delivered to the family of the decedent.

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?

Pettus v. McGinnis

533 F. Supp. 2d 337 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 11, 2008

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … immunity was limited to whether right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the incident, and concluding that it was not).

Schaffrath on Behalf of RJJ v. Thomas

993 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 28, 1998

clearly established at the time of the conduct *847 at issue. … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found' the law to be

Robert B. Brown v. Texas a & M University

804 F.2d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 1986

Perez In order to overcome Reynolds’ claim of qualified immunity, Brown must show that Reynolds’ conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Forsyth, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (“Unless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”).

CHS Industries, LLC v. United States Customs & Border Protection

653 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2009

. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave a succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of 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.”

William J. Benson v. Robert H. Allphin

786 F.2d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1986

Qualified Immunity As government officials performing discretionary functions, Allphin and Rummel are shielded from liability for civil damages in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory … Although the Supreme Court has articulated the rule for qualified immunity, it has not fully explained what it means by the phrase “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

James v. City of Birmingham

926 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 19, 2013

Qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … that were allegedly violated were clearly established.

Rigler v. Lampert

248 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law, without resolving

Vernon v. Deramus

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 9, 2024

Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a single incident cannot establish a pattern or practice and Plaintiffs have not shown a violation of a clearly established right. … Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.”).

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

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

Norwood v. Woodford

583 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2008

The defense of 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 … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” a finding of qualified immunity is appropriate, as “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

Simkins v. Bruce

406 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 9, 2005

II Our analysis of qualified immunity involves two steps. … Plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the entry of summary judgment for defendants on the basis of qualified immunity was error.

Perez-Morciglio v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

820 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, D. Nevada · Oct 25, 2011

Plaintiffs also have established their rights were clearly established. … Because the qualified immunity inquiry is entwined with the merits, genuine issues of fact remain as to whether Scott and Schaier are entitled to qualified immunity.

Dill v. City of Edmond

155 F.3d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying Vetter qualified immunity. Our analysis of the qualified immunity defense is two-pronged. … In this case, because Vetter’s qualified immunity was predicated on the basis that the law was not clearly established, qualified immunity does not shield the City of Edmond.

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.