Case law

Smithson v. Aldrich

235 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

clearly established; and (3) raise[d] a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated the plaintiff[s'] clearly established right." … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Dallas Independent School District v. Finlan

27 S.W.3d 220 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Oct 3, 2000

Qualified Immunity Analysis Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for civil damages, if “their conduct does not violate … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

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.

Keating v. University of South Dakota

980 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 30, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The second step in the qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether Keating’s free speech right was clearly established at the time his contract was not renewed. See Sexton, 210 F.3d at 910.

Curley v. Klem

298 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constItutional right, then it must deny him the ~rotection afforded by qualified immunity. See id. at 2156-57. … immunity issues early in the litigation is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right

Zisk v. City of Roseville

56 Cal. App. 3d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

. §§ 1983 and/or 1985) because the city councilmen are not immune from liability thereunder and because the pleadings establish that the councilmen clearly violated established constitutional rights of plaintiffs. … The court found them immune from liability, stating: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Sep 13, 2002

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

Emmanuel v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2020

Homchick’s failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest or an abuse of process also entitles Defendants to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … point to facts that support a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) 22 (discussing Saucier v.

Rogers v. Pocono Mountain East High School

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“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

Allen L. Fludd v. United States Secret Service Maurice Daugherty

771 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1985

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Myers v. City of Fort Wayne, Ind.

729 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1990

There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v. … An official “would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that [the official] was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position.” Wrigley v.

Baldwin v. Estherville, Iowa

218 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 18, 2016

In the alternative, the defendants argue that Officers Reineke and Hellickson are entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not *997 clearly established that, when the City incorporated Iowa Code Ch. 321 into the City … . “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which

Marshall Spiegel v. Joseph Cortese, Detective, and James Hennelly and Holly Zielke

196 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials who are performing discretionary functions in the course of duty to the extent that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time in question.”

Losee v. Preece

District Court, D. Utah · Mar 30, 2022

In particular, Defendants contend the Court did not address the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, which is whether the unconstitutional conduct alleged was “clearly established.” (Id.) … Plaintiff counters that Defendants’ qualified-immunity argument is moot. (ECF No. 53, at 3.) Defendants are correct that the Court erred in not giving the clearly-established prong the required treatment.

Morris Rodgers v. John Jabe, Jerry Hofbauer, and Robin Pratt, in Their Individual and Official Capacities

43 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 12, 1995

were entitled to qualified immunity because the amount of exercise to which prisoners had a right was not clearly established at the time of the defendants’ actions. … Most importantly, the magistrate judge denied qualified immunity because the relevant law was “clearly established” by August 29, 1991. Hofbauer and Pratt objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Abdullah v. Washington

437 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants contend that the Eight Amendment claim against them should be dismissed based on qualified immunity. … the violation is established, whether the right was clearly established.

Hebert v. State

165 Vt. 557 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 18, 1996

Under federal law, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In Hall , for example, the court held that “[i]t was clearly established in 1986 that police officers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who is in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or

Jones v. Price

696 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Mar 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Price also has argued that good faith qualified immunity shields him from liability in this action because his conduct did not violate a clearly established right held by Jones. … Here, Price has failed to establish that he is shielded by qualified immunity.

Magrum v. Meinke

332 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The officer, however, was still entitled to qualified immunity because the court could not “say that it was clearly established as of February 20, 2001, that a police officer may not detain an individual exiting a house reportedly

Dorian Johnson v. City of Ferguson

864 F.3d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

a clearly established constitutional violation. … Whether Officer Wilson and Chief Jackson are entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether it was clearly established that Officer Wilson violated Johnson’s Fourth Amendment rights.