Case law

Schiffbauer v. Schmidt

95 F. Supp. 3d 846 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2015

Furthermore, because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit “rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial,” Mitchell … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before *853 the commencement of discovery.”

Computer Sciences Corp. v. Ibarra

685 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 27, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that its federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Watson v. Norris

729 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 7, 1989

of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … The current test, as summarized by the Sixth Circuit, is this: if the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff must show a violation of the constitutional right or rights and “that these rights were so clearly

Madiwale v. Savaiko

117 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 1997

Lanier, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 1227, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997).1 The qualified immunity inquiry, then, must establish first, whether the defendant government official was performing a discretionary function … Thus, we cannot say that Savaiko violated clearly established law by reporting Madiwale to the DPR, and she is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Armendariz v. Penman

31 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a federal claim, Siegert, 500 U.S. at 233 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793-94 ; or if in light of clearly established principles … Clearly Established The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Baker v.

Larry J. Leaf, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John P. Leaf, Deceased, Martha A. Leaf, John P. Leaf v. Ronald Shelnutt

400 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2005

of one ‘clearly established’ right .... ”); see also International Action Center v. … We note that, even if we had found that the Fourth Amendment forbade the search at issue here, Deputy Shelnutt still would be entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that such a sweep violates

Eric K. Brooks v. D Miller

78 F.4th 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2023

He argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of Brooks’s con- stitutional rights, and even assuming he did, any rights were not clearly established. … In sum, the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity in- quiry asks whether the law when the officer engaged in the USCA11 Case: 21-10590 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2023 Page: 22 of

Jackson v. Long

102 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 1996

issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was `clearly established.'" … This contention raises the legal questions of whether Sheriff Long violated any clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiffs in responding to the inmate's complaint against them and, if the law clearly established

Eichler v. Sherbin

283 F. App'x 528 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2008

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 1 and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further consideration of whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id.

Cornelius v. La Croix

631 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 3, 1986

Qualified Immunity David La Croix asserts that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity from the damages awarded against him in this case. Mr. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity as it now stands, the issue is whether the challenged conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified School District

964 F. Supp. 1369 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 1997

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense 1. Whether the Law at the Time of Guzman’s Alleged Acts and Omissions Was Clearly Established a. … The investigator asserted a qualified immunity defense, maintaining that the law did not clearly establish that his actions violated Eastwood’s right to privacy.

Hodge v. Village of Southampton

838 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hunsucker argues, in the alternative, that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Smith v. Allbaugh

987 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 2021

Constitutional Violation A public official or employee is entitled to qualified immunity unless “clearly established” federal rights of which a reasonable person would have known are shown to have been violated. … Once a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.” Morris v.

Stinebaugh v. City of Wapakoneta

630 F. App'x 522 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

Thus, Stinebaugh established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis — that his First Amendment rights were violated. See City of Elyria, 502 F.3d at 491 . B. Clearly Established Law. … “To determine whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, this court look[s] first to decisions of the Supreme Court, then to decisions of this court and other courts within our circuit, and

Steven M. Harrison v. John Dahm, Etc.

911 F.2d 37 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 1990

The standard for qualified immunity is well established. In Harlow v. … to qualified immunity.

Hyburnia Husband v. Charles Bryan and Larry Saurage

946 F.2d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 1991

Violation of Clearly Established Law “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when a reasonable officer could have believed that the challenged conduct did not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Neuberger v. Gordon

567 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jul 21, 2008

For qualified immunity purposes, a right is considered clearly established only if “[t]he contours of the right ... … As a result, the “unlawful intent inherent in ... retaliatory action places it beyond the scope of ... qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established.” DeLoach, 922 F.2d at 620 .

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

de Veloz v. Miami-Dade County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 8, 2017

Once a qualified immunity defense has been asserted, unless Plaintiffs’ “allegations state a claim of violation1 of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Seaman v. Karr

114 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing *681 violates that right.