Case law

Howard v. Wilkinson

305 F. Supp. 3d 1327 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 2, 2018

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 … The Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that the Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Eldridge v. Morrison

970 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 1996

Under this test, public official performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … The Eleventh Circuit has explained that [f]or the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context

Ford v. Donovan

891 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2012

Qualified Immunity “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 … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194 n.12 (1984) (“officials may lose their immunity by violating ‘clearly established statutory . . . rights.’”) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818).

Newberry v. Board of County Commissioners

919 P.2d 141 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1996

Our statutory provision clearly is one in which immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521 (Wyo.1994); Hurst v. State, 698 P.2d 1130 (Wyo.1985). See Kimbley v. … If a statute employs a term which has a standard meaning, the term is presumably used in its ordinary and usual sense unless another sense is clearly intended. W.S. 8-1- *146 103(a)(i).

Freeman v. Fallin

254 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2003

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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.” … Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 591 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (stating that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know

54 Fair empl.prac.cas. 737, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,401 Juanita Nicholson v. Georgia Department of Human Resources, (Dhr), James G. Ledbetter, Individually and in Official Capacity as Commissioner, Georgia Dept. Of Human Resources, Thomas R. Gaines, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director, Dhr Division of Rehabilitative Services, Gene A. Wallace, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director of Planning Research and Special Projects, Dhr Division of Rehabilitative Services, Paula McIntoch Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Director of Management Support Services, Dhr Division of Rehabilitative Services, Jane Shepard, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Director of Quality Assurance and Human Resources Development, Dhr Division of Rehabilitation Services

918 F.2d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 8, 1991

These defendants raised a defense of qualified immunity. … engaged in conduct violative of the clearly established right.

Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S.

281 F. App'x 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity* “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If the right at issue was not clearly established ... then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir.2007).

Guerrero v. Deane

750 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity 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 … For purposes of the clearly established inquiry, “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Tony Ray Coleman v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

409 F.3d 665 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2005

The dissent claims that application of Vitek to sex offender conditions cannot be clearly established under AEDPA because courts have found that the law in this area is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity … For qualified immunity purposes, law is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable official that her conduct was unlawful in the situation she confronted. Saucier v.

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

Gunasekera v. Irwin

551 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2009

established to defeat the defendants’ qualified immunity defense must wait until a factual record has been developed. … established for purposes of qualified immunity before a factual record had been developed.

SMITH v. MCKINNEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2023

As an affirmative defense, the burden of establishing qualified immunity falls on to the official claiming it. , 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011). … clearly established when the conduct took place. , 905 F.3d at 716.

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,...

Brooks v. Sevier County

279 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 24, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense available to government officials for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Claims of qualified immunity are assessed on a fact-specific basis to ascertain whether the particular conduct of the defendant police officer infringed on a clearly established federal right of the plaintiff, and whether

Michael Segaline v. State Of Wa, Dept. Of L & I

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2017

If Alan Croft has qualified immunity as to the trespass notice he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that flowed from it. ... Absent a clearly established right, Mr. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability and money damages so long as "'their conduct does not violate clearly established ...

Alexander v. University of North Florida

39 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

PER CURIAM: Principles of qualified immunity control this case. … But, nothing in Cornelius comes close to the “clearly established” standard required to overcome the qualified immunity defense in this case.

Jermosen v. Smith

945 F.2d 547 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, Lip-pold argues that he and the other officers involved did not violate Jermosen’s “clearly established” rights and were thus entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. We agree.

Allan F. Archer, Jr. v. Gilbert Sanchez

933 F.2d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

Anderson then guides our inquiry into whether qualified immunity shields Mr. … While the court must decide whether the law in question was clearly established, Meade v.

Francis Brauner v. Shirley Coody

793 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Denying qualified immunity implies both “that a certain course of conduct would . . . be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law” and “that a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant … To determine that an official is not entitled to qualified immunity, the court must find that every reasonable officer would have understood that the alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Solis v. Prince George's County

153 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

Qualified Immunity under 12 U.S.C. § 1983 Under § 1983, state officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the Court finds that Officer Ruffin has not established an entitlement to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim. b.