Case law

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.

Ronald K. Drewitt v. Fred L. Pratt Pizza Hut of America, Inc., City of Norfolk, Party-In-Interest

999 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 1993

Accordingly, because no clearly established constitutional right was violated, the district court held that Officer Pratt was clearly entitled to qualified immunity on such claim. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one "clearly established,” or that, though "clearly established,” (and violated), it was one that a

Jaymes Stark v. Lee County IA

993 F.3d 622 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 7, 2021

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” … In the absence of a showing that Sproul acted with deliberate indifference, Stark has not established the existence of an Eighth Amendment violation.2 We therefore reverse the order denying the motion for qualified immunity

McKinney ex rel. McKinney v. DeKalb County

997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established constitutional right, and second, whether, viewed most favorably to … Under the test for qualified immunity, Officer Nelsen could avoid liability for discretionary functions if his alleged conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Okwa v. Harper

360 Md. 161 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2000

... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … In determining whether Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from Appellants’ § 1983 claim we first look to the relevant “legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time” which governed Appellees actions during

Tunnell v. Office of Public Defender

583 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1984

If the law was not clearly established, the defendant will prevail on summary judgment on the basis of the qualified immunity defense, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2739 , unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew … If, on the other hand, the applicable law was clearly established, then, as the Court noted in Harlow , it should have been known to “a reasonably competent public official,” and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily

Ewing v. City of Stockton

588 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2009

The Ewings do not establish that the unlawfulness of charging Heather with murder on the facts in question was clearly established. See Hope v. … The Supreme Court has clearly stated that with respect to advising police, prosecutors are entitled to qualified not absolute immunity. Burns, 500 U.S. at 492-95 , 111 S.Ct. 1934 .

Lewis v. City of Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon Police Dept.

984 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 13, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity entitles police officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The requirement of a clearly established right means that the inquiry to ascertain whether qualified immunity is available differs from the inquiry into whether the Fourth Amendment may have been violated.

Danielle Ex Rel. Komando v. Adriazola

284 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 4, 2003

However, individual government employees acting within the scope of their official duties enjoy the defense of qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Defendants further contend that, even if Plaintiff does state a claim under § 1983, that violation of these state rules was not clearly established, and, therefore, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Jefferson v. Ashley

643 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 1986

Whether an official prevails on a defense of qualified immunity depends on the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. … Plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated any clearly established law or right.

Hinton v. City Of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that issue, 857 F.2d … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that "there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to proceed when

Jeffries v. Ayoub

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … If, as a matter of law, the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, then Ayoub is qualifiedly immune.

James Wilburn Feagley v. Bill Waddill, Superintendent, Abilene State School

868 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 1989

In denying this motion, the district court determined that a cause of action under section 1983 had been asserted and that none of the defendants had established entitlement to qualified immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court further refined the principles of qualified immunity by holding that the right allegedly violated by the defendant’s conduct “must have been ‘clearly

Poteet v. Sullivan

218 S.W.3d 780 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Were the constitutional rights violated by Officers Sullivan and Lucio clearly established?

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

313 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the denial of the motion may be appealed immediately under the collateral-order doctrine because "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather … For instance, we may "review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," but we may not "consider whether the district court

Usavage v. Port Authority

932 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity and Excessive Force “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 … Accordingly, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established only if (1) the officers’ actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that their actions did

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.

Rivas v. Freeman

940 F.2d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

In Harlow, the Supreme Court further stated that if the law regarding an individual's constitutional or statutory rights is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail. … Harlow, at 819, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 20 The district court denied the deputies' claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas's clearly established constitutional rights.

Hanse v. Phillips

276 Ga. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 29, 2005

Supreme Court has held that “qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id. at 124 (1). … And this “provides persuasive reasons for resolving the issue of... qualified immunity as early as possible in the legal proceedings.” Id.

Sprouse v. Ryan

346 F. Supp. 3d 1347 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 7, 2017

Qualified immunity therefore turns on the second prong-whether the right at issue was clearly established such that Defendants would have known that their conduct was unlawful. See Saucier v. … Unpublished district court decisions "may inform our qualified immunity analysis," but "absent any published opinions on point or overwhelming obviousness of illegality[,]" a right is rarely clearly established.