Case law

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.

Sloan v. Dulak

868 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2012

Qualified immunity protects public officials, including police officers, facing liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Going on to address whether the officer was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not “clearly established,” the First Circuit further stated that “[a] reasonable officer .... would not have needed

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.

Tubar v. Clift

453 F. Supp. 2d 1252 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2006

This “qualified immunity” is determined in two steps. … Moreover, the officer in Acosta was denied qualified immunity because the law at the time of the incident in that case was also “clearly established.”

Rooni v. Biser

742 F.3d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

“To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … clearly established.

K.W.P. v. Kansas City Public Schools

931 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 1, 2019

that [their] conduct violated a clearly established right.’” … not satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard here

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

Norris v. Engles

494 F.3d 634 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2007

“If so, then we determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time.” Id. “If either question is answered in the negative, the public official is entitled to qualified immunity.” … a constitutional violation, we need not consider whether her constitutional right to due process was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Richard Clemons v. John Couch

3 F.4th 897 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2021

CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT In the second step of our qualified-immunity analysis, we must determine whether Richard’s constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, a constitutional violation must be so clearly established by existing precedent that “every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule

J.M.R. v. County of Talladega

686 So. 2d 209 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Nov 27, 1996

. § 1983 , the defendants raised qualified immunity as a defense. … Under the qualified immunity defense to § 1983 actions, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

965 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 20, 2020

So I join Chief Judge Tymkovich’s opinion as far as it addresses the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … A court holds, as the Eleventh Circuit did, that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate any clearly established rights. See Corbitt v.

Dijon Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department

59 F.4th 674 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 7, 2023

When the stop occurred, it was not clearly established that the officer’s actions violated the passenger’s First Amendment rights. So qualified immunity bars that claim. I. … Walker, A Qualified Defense of Qualified Immunity, 93 NOTRE DAME L.

Mutter v. Town of Salem

945 F. Supp. 402 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 1996

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 or constitutional … The qualified immunity analysis in this circuit is two-pronged: (1) “the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff [must be] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” and (2) “a reasonable official situated

Peelman v. Delaware Joint Vocational School District Board of Education

763 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 1991

Fitzgerald involved the application and scope of the qualified immunity of federal executive officials arising under federal law, some questioned the applicability of the Harlow decision to a defense of qualified immunity … Therefore, because the same facts which would establish the validity of the plaintiff’s claim under § 1983, would serve to deny the defendants the protection afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, the defendants

Foster v. McGrail

844 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 1994

In addition, even if plaintiff succeeded in proving a prima facie claim for a state constitutional violation, he failed to overcome defendant’s qualified immunity as established *25 under state law. … is claiming “have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Doe v. Whelan

732 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2013

Such a state official is entitled to qualified immunity from actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … Where the law is clearly established, “a caseworker is . . . entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual context.”

Margaret Cowan, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria Cooper v. Michael Breen, Town of North Branford, Consolidated-Defendant-Appellant

352 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 18, 2003

If the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry ends and the plaintiff may not recover. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Was the law clearly established? Breen, relying on County of Sacramento v.

Angela Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

870 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

Ficca is entitled to qualified immunity as long as she does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional or federal right. Sharp, 669 F.3d at 159 (quoting Saucier v. … And the district court cases cited cannot clearly establish law for qualified immunity purposes in any event. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 , 709 n.7, 131 S.Ct. 2020 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011).

Smith v. Kenny

678 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 24, 2009

to qualified immunity. … issue of qualified immunity.

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.”