Case law

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).

Tillery v. Kalinski

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 2020

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if: [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Lisa Amaechi v. Matthew West, and Bernard R. Pfluger Town of Dumfries

237 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 2001

The district court denied West’s motion for summary judgment based upon a defense of qualified immunity, reasoning that West’s search, as described by Amaechi, violated Amaechi’s clearly established constitutional rights … To that end, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

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

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

Richard Winfrey, Jr. v. San Jacinto County

901 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2018

(“Junior”) or Megan Winfrey was not a “material” omission, and which reflects that it is Junior’s burden to overcome qualified immunity, not Johnson’s burden to show that qualified immunity applies. … the right was “clearly established” when the violation occurred.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

John v. County of Centre

80 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2000

“Unless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” P.F. v. … Therefore, we find that plaintiffs cannot overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense by showing that the challenged conduct violated rights that were clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

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.

Ferreira v. Town of East Hampton

56 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 4, 2014

However, in holding that government actors enjoyed qualified immunity for conducting a war-rantless abatement of a public nuisance, the Second Circuit has held that Tyler did not clearly establish a warrant requirement to … Qualified Immunity Finally, Narvilas, Jilnicki, Schirrippa, Glogg, and Grenci assert the defense of qualified immunity.

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

Wilson v. Lamp

142 F. Supp. 3d 793 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 3, 2015

Qualified Immunity For 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 … If’deciding the issue of qualified immunity now, I would resolve that the law is clearly established, based on the Fifth,' Seventh, Eighth,' Ninth, and Tenth Circuit cases cited in Section III(C) of* this Opinion and Order

Ward v. Members of the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University

700 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 24, 2010

Qualified immunity protects state officials sued in their individual capacities from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

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.