Case law

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.”

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

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.

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.

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

Verdecia v. United States

327 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

a violation of clearly established law, this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal”). … This court, however, “reviews summary judgment orders deciding qualified immunity questions differently from other summary judgment decisions” because of the purposes behind qualified immunity. Holland v.

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.

Harold Wayne Enlow v. Tishomingo County, Mississippi, Jim Wall, in His Individual Capacity

962 F.2d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions in light of clearly established law. Id. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 . … s first inquiry — he has also set forth a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. We now address the second inquiry under Siegert— Wall’s entitlement to his qualified immunity defense.

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

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.

Hathaway v. Stone

687 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 27, 1988

Even if it did, they further contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As set out in Voutour , the standard for qualified immunity is whether a government official performing discretionary functions should reasonably have known that his or her actions violated clearly established statutory or

Maye v. Reno

231 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2002

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … right would have been violated on the facts alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered,...

Wilkerson v. State

16 Brief Times Rptr. 394 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1992

The plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was “clearly established.” … Hence, we find no basis justifying penetration of the shield of qualified immunity afforded to these defendants. *1127 While the question of qualified immunity generally turns on objective factors, Harlow does not preclude

Vaughn v. Gray

557 F.3d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2009

In deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks two questions: “(1) whether ... there was a deprivation of a constitutional right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established … In this case, Appellants argue only that Vaughn has not established the deprivation of a constitutional right, and therefore, we need not address whether that right was “clearly established.”

April Myrick v. Fulton County, Georgia

69 F.4th 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2023

That means that if a defendant raises the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, the district court must dismiss any claims that do not allege a violation of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity “shields a government official from lia- bility unless he violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Youngs v. Fusaro

179 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert, as a defense to both of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims, that they are shielded from the lawsuit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Martel v.

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

799 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

But the defendants remain protected by qualified immunity, which is lost only if Stinson presents evidence showing that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. He has not done so. … clearly established at the time of their actions.

Ronald C. Ayersman and Ronald C. "Mackey" Ayersman, Assistant State Fire Marshal v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford and West Virginia State Fire Marshal's Office v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 20, 2022

rights that may be enforced via civil suits, so it cannot be a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right or law,” the violation of which can overcome qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws . . . or are otherwise fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive[.]”

Evenstad v. Herberg

994 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 10, 2014

A government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate “clearly established” law at the time. 6 Defendants argue that the infliction of de minimis injury did not violate clearly established law … Defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to all of Evenstad’s claims, but as the laws relevant to his other surviving claims were clearly established in 2006 (e.g., the right to be free from retaliation for the exercise

Crawford v. Kemp

139 P.3d 1249 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2006

With respect to Crawford’s constitutional claims, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, a reasonable … entitled to qualified immunity so long as they did not violate "clearly established” law); see also Samaniego, 2 P.3d at 84 (applying the federal test for official immunity to a claim for excessive force). 13 .