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.”

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.

Xiaoxing Xi v. Andrew Haugen

68 F.4th 824 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2023

Its determination that Xi failed to establish a “clearly established” violation for purposes of its qualified immunity analysis was therefore dispositive. Id. Xi now brings this timely appeal. II. … immunity because any constitutional rights he violated were not “clearly established.”

Floyd v. City of Detroit

518 F.3d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 2008

this case, Floyd’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force was clearly established. … The defendants properly concede that a suspect’s right to be free from the use of excessive force is clearly established.

Hutton v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk

45 Mass. App. Ct. 304 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 13, 1998

“clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hutton’s rights were not clearly established, and the defendants, therefore, enjoy immunity from suit under the § 1983 claim and under the common law false imprisonment claim. 6 The defendants’ motions for summary judgment

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

Charfauros v. Board of Elections

5 N. Mar. I. 188 · Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands · Nov 27, 1998

The members of the Board of Elections, acting in their individual capacities, asserted qualified immunity. 7 The court held that “the procedure for resolving voter challenges was not ‘clearly established’ at the time the … immunity because the process for disqualifying voters was not sufficiently or clearly established at the time the hearings were held.

Bailey v. Kenney

791 F. Supp. 1511 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 16, 1992

Standards for Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is available to state actors who perform discretionary functions if their actions do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … violated a clearly established federal right of plaintiff.

Louis Bianchi v. Thomas McQueen

818 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified-immunity doctrine holds that “government of- ficials are not subject to damages liability for the perfor- mance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly … was clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.”

Williams v. County of Alameda

26 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2014

An officer will receive qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful, in 'light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Id. … Even an officer who reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right will receive qualified immunity. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205-206, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

George Trammell v. Kevin Fruge

868 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2017

Officers Fruge, Garza, Ingles, and Neveu Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity as to this claim is thus appropriate. .

Cesar v. Achim

542 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 27, 2008

The burden of proving the existence of a clearly established constitutional right is on the plaintiff, and it is a heavy one because qualified immunity is designed to shield from civil liability “ ‘all but the plainly incompetent … Moreover, I do not believe qualified immunity is appropriate at this time, as Achim’s alleged conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, could amount to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right

Billie Hovick v. Darci Patterson

37 F.4th 511 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

established.2 “We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” … Our qualified-immunity inquiry “involv[es] two questions—whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and whether that right was clearly established.” Id.

Rasanen Ex Rel. Estate of Rasanen v. Brown

603 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

Here, Brown and Etherton seek summary judgment on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Batton v. Mashburn

107 F. Supp. 3d 1191 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 12, 2015

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known.” … Because Plaintiff has alleged the violation of his right of association and this right was clearly established at the time of his termination, Mashburn is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim. 5 B

Ramirez v. City of Buena Park

560 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Under Saucier’s second prong, we ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Nation v. State, Dept. of Correction

144 Idaho 177 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2007

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Next, did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? Finally, was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Sutton v. Village of Valley Stream, NY

96 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2000

A government official claiming qualified immunity bears the burden of proving either: (1) that the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) that it was … established” so as to defeat a claim for qualified immunity.

St. John v. McColley

653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … John’s rights were clearly established. The Court finds that they were.

Ciolino v. Eastman

128 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 3, 2015

Second Prong: Clearly Established Right The disputes of fact discussed above also preclude the Court from finding that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not “clearly established,” such that Defendants would … be entitled to qualified immunity on the second prong of the test.