Case law

Moore v. City of Wynnewood

57 F.3d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity shields Sanders from liability and the burden of having to go to trial unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

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. .

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?

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

Hall v. Trochessett

105 F.4th 335 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 2024

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … We will now determine whether there was a clearly established right.

Halperin v. Kissinger

578 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 1984

The doctrine *234 of qualified immunity now focuses on whether a government official’s conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … judgment based on qualified immunity. .

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.

Hulen v. Yates

322 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

Hulen received all process which is due, (2) Dean Costello was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. Even assuming that Dr. … Qualified Immunity Government officials who perform discretionary government functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of

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.

In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 28, 2023

“[E]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense may still shield officials from liability.84 “[I]f it was objectively … clearly established right.

Bradley L. McCloud C. Calvin Skaates Terrence B. Cohen Gloria Jean Morgan Vernon E. Hysell v. Joseph W. Testa,defendant-Appellant

227 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2000

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … He is not, however, clearly entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity at this stage. Ill For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Testa’s motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

Moore v. Dormin

252 A.D.2d 421 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 16, 1998

As for qualified privilege, the plaintiff clearly did not raise a triable issue as to the defendant’s motivation, under either the constitutional or the common-law definition of malice. … Defendant raised the bar of absolute and qualified immunity based on his capacity as a prosecutor and the official context of the statements, arguing that the communication was made by one law-enforcement official to another

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

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.

Haynes v. Marshall

887 F.2d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 12, 1989

“[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ ” in a particularized sense, Anderson v. … They suggest, however, that there was no clearly established standard by which to measure whether they used excessive force, until 1986 when the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Whitley v.

Broam v. Bogan

320 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2003

a criminal investigation either does not violate a federal constitutional right, or the constitutional right was not clearly established on the date of the alleged violation. … not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'"

Sloan v. Dulak

868 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2012

Qualified immunity protects public officials, including police officers, facing liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Going on to address whether the officer was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not “clearly established,” the First Circuit further stated that “[a] reasonable officer .... would not have needed

Edward v. GEC, LLC

67 V.I. 745 · Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · Aug 1, 2017

However, it is equally “well-established that a party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.” *756 Gov’t of the V.I. v. … Additionally, courts in other jurisdictions have repeatedly interpreted similar workers’ compensation immunity statutes as not establishing limits on subject-matter jurisdiction, but simply codifying affirmative defenses

Fabrikant v. French

691 F.3d 193 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 16, 2012

arguendo that the SPCA investigators were state actors, they would be entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Analysis “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutorily or constitutional rights of