Case law

Mary Estep v. Police Officer Mackey

639 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 2016

This “collateral-order doctrine” allows us to review certain orders that deny a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Nicole Guerriero v. City of Delray Beach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2024

To establish a prima facie case, she must show that (1) “she belong[ed] to a pro- tected class,” (2) “she was subjected to an adverse employment ac- tion,” (3) “she was qualified to perform the job … GTE Fla., Inc., 226 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that evidence showing that plaintiff was “clearly more qualified” in one area relevant for the job did not establish that employer’s decision

Harrell v. City of New York

161 F. Supp. 3d 180 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 2016

Qualified immunity shields prosecutors “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.” … ’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Sonoda v. Cabrera

255 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants, to the extent they have been sued in their individual capacities for violation of § 1983, have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Because Sonoda has established a constitutional violation based upon due process, it is necessary to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York

996 F.2d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

Such qualified immunity from suit is appropriate if a prosecutor’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We held that the prosecutor was entitled to qualified immunity because he had no clearly established duty to protect at the time of the witness’s death in 1982. Id. at 102 .

Jackson v. Rapps

746 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Aug 13, 1990

The qualified immunity bar applies when the alleged conduct does not violate, under an objective standard of review, a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … The Court held that Mitchell was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that such wiretaps were unconstitutional. Id. at 2818.

Lowery v. County of Riley

522 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 14, 2008

DISCUSSION Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If so, the court must then determine whether the right asserted was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id.

Richard Powell v. Randy Johnson

405 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 2, 2005

On appeal, the Appellants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the decision to demote Powell was reasonable in light of clearly established law. … If the answer is no, qualified immunity is proper and summary judgment should be granted. If the answer is yes, we next decide “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Meyers v. Redwood City

400 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 2005

Defendants claim that they did not violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and, in the alternative, that those rights were not clearly established and Defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … B 29 Even if we thought that the officers crossed a line established by Harris , the officers are surely entitled to qualified immunity because they could not have known that they were violating the Plaintiffs'"clearly established

Herman v. City of Tucson

197 Ariz. 430 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 23, 1999

In defense, the City asserted qualified immunity under the recreational use statute. … To conclusively establish recreational user status based solely on the City’s grant of permission to all persons to enter a park, the Hermans argue, would result in “a ‘blanket immunity’ that covers everyone in the world,

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

Peters v. Woodbury County

979 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Oct 25, 2013

In short, the answer to the second qualified immunity question on this claim, whether the right was “clearly established,” is “no.” e. … of the “qualified immunity” analysis.

Lawson v. Gregg

140 F. Supp. 3d 873 · District Court, D. Alaska · Oct 20, 2015

could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.” 44 “Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make … The United ‘States Supreme Court has held that a court should “not ... define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” 53 “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be

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

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

956 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 28, 2013

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court, faced with the clearly established prong of Wilson’s qualified immunity, recognized that “courts considering qualified immunity for strip searches” have found it “impossible to establish clearly the contours

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.

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

Nielander v. Board of County Commissioners

582 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … -24- concluding that statement two was a true threat under clearly established federal law) cannot be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified

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.”

Vista McDuffie v. Hopper

982 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 23, 1997

The opinion does so by jumping directly to a discussion of whether the doctor had violated clearly established law, Id. at 721, assuming, without deciding, that qualified immunity necessarily follows § 1983 liability. … Again, however, the court does so by jumping straight to an analysis of clearly established law; it does not address the question whether private party doctors are entitled to claim qualified immunity at all.