Case law

Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow

2000 Me. 141 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2000

“A public official claiming qualified immunity ... must establish either that he or she did not -violate the plaintiffs rights or that given the state of the law a reasonable official would not have understood that he [or … A right is clearly established if “the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that- right.

Staco v. Miami-Dade County

536 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 26, 2008

This heightened pleading standard is important because the court in a qualified immunity case must determine whether the individual defendant’s actions violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. Id. … The affirmative defense of qualified 'immunity protects public actors from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Greenberg v. Kmetko

840 F.2d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1988

The defendants submit on appeal that they should be shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … A fortiori, constitutional protection for such expressions was not clearly established in 1976.

Grancid Camilo-Robles v. Jose R. Zapata, A/K/A Jose R. Zapata-Rivera

175 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 20, 1999

Because of its focus on tort causation and culpability, the qualified immunity analysis in neglect-of-risk cases seldom, if ever, raises abstract questions of law about whether a right was clearly established. … We concluded that the applicable law, and, hence, the plaintiffs’ asserted right, was clearly established by *46 1993.

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.

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?” … Accordingly, Gutierrez is entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED.

Austin v. Redford Township Police Department

859 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2011

The qualified immunity objections The defendants’ fourth objection does not challenge the magistrate’s conclusion that the law concerning the use of Tasers on subdued suspects is clearly established. … The fact that defendant Pauli may have violated a clearly established constitutional right necessarily means that defendant Pauli is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jackson v. McCurry

303 F. Supp. 3d 1367 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 22, 2017

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show both (1) that the relevant defendant violated their constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. … To overcome Oates's qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must prove that it was clearly established at the time of Oates's search of EDJ's phone that such a search would violate the Fourth Amendment.

Rome v. Romero

225 F.R.D. 640 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 22, 2004

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Even where a qualified immunity defense is asserted, some limited discovery is still permitted.

Hertog v. City of Seattle

138 Wash. 2d 265 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

State, 127 Wn.2d 434 , 899 P.2d 1270 (1995), that the qualified personal immunity for parole officers recognized in Taggart does not extend to the State. … If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not.

Aaron Tobey v. Terri Jones

706 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 25, 2013

Tobey did not allege a facially valid First Amendment claim and even if he did, qualified immunity bars such a claim because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. II. … occurred, and two, whether the right violated was clearly established.

Gean v. Hattaway

330 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 2003

We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred. … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established in a more particularized ... sense,” Anderson v.

Brown v. Newton County Sheriff's Office

273 F. Supp. 3d 1142 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 7, 2017

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue that Officers Shirley and Ramsey are entitled to qualified immunity and therefore cannot be liable for shooting Ms. Brown. … There are three ways to show that a right was clearly established: (1) a “materially similar” case has already been decided; (2) a broad statement of principle within the Constitution, statute, or case law clearly establishes

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.

Terry Lee Passmore Swann v. Southern Health

388 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2004

The parties agree that as a private entity, SHP is not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. … This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where we must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. 132 F3d. at 1367 (emphasis added) (citations omitted

Davis v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

380 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Wollmershauser asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established under the second prong.

Adams v. May

903 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 19, 2012

qualified immunity because his actions were objectively reasonable in light of the information available to him and the law that was clearly established at the time of his actions. … May is entitled to qualified immunity regarding his actions of applying pepper spray. 2.

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

Marcello v. Maine

489 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 6, 2007

The First Circuit’s three-step approach to qualified immunity claims asks: (I) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

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