Case law

Shelton v. Angelone

148 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 21, 2001

“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.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-819 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v.

Yost v. Wilhoit

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 8, 2021

Defendant Wilhoit also asserts qualified immunity as a defense. … It is well established that a plaintiff has the burden to defeat qualified immunity once it has been raised.

Garner v. Steger

69 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 2014

Third, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. … The court next turns to the second prong of qualified immunity — whether the employment action here violated Garner’s clearly established rights.

Hyland v. Wonder

117 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 1997

The defendants asserted qualified immunity. … The district court granted the individual defendants summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, finding that it was not “clearly established” in 1989 that a government volunteer possessed the same First Amendment

Scott R. Rushing v. Estate of Ernest R. Mincey

599 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2010

“[Q]ualified immunity protects government 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 … 3 were clearly established at the time the officer acted.”

Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police

71 F.3d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 22, 1995

The officers contend that the district court erred because they are shielded from Orsatti's claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 7 Because we find that the undisputed material facts of record establish that it was … Finding that the right at issue was clearly established, however, does not end the court's inquiry. Nor does the court's decision turn merely on whether the official violated that clearly established right.

Summar ex rel. Summar v. Bennett

157 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331 (6th Cir.1993), for example, this court generally explained that “[t]he right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right,” yet affirmed a district court’s denial of qualified … precedent to the rejection of qualified immunity.

Supra Medical Corp. v. McGonigle

955 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1997

The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity under one of the exceptions in § 1605. … The UMDS Defendants have provided no evidence of UMDS’ ownership, relying instead on a claim that the Schools’ qualify for immunity as an “organ of a foreign state.”

Schwartz v. Pridy

874 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 18, 1995

Government officials performing discretionary functions are provided with qualified immunity from a civil rights damages action if their challenged conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires a determination of whether the constitutional right in question was “clearly established.” Id.

Sand v. Steele

218 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 15, 2002

As has been ruled consistently in the past: The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established … “The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Facey v. Dickhaut

91 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2014

a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

Inspector Winston’s Qualified Immunity We begin our evaluation of the qualified immunity issue by setting forth Mr. Maltb/s allegations against Inspector Winston. In his complaint, Mr. … City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir.1994) ("The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.”); Apostol v.

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

Evenstad v. State

178 Ariz. 578 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 5, 1993

We agree with appellants that the qualified immunity provisions of A.R.S. section 12-820.02 do not apply to the duty of MVD to prescribe rules and regulations. … Clearly, MVD may be held liable for the grossly negligent issuance of drivers’ licenses. See § 12-820.02(5); Bird, 170 Ariz. at 23 , 821 P.2d at 290 (dicta) (qualified immunity applies to issuance of driver’s license).

Steven Gillman v. City of Troy, Mich.

126 F.4th 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 2025

Qualified Immunity Green-Hernandez begins by contesting the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on her qualified immunity defense. … “A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate ‘clearly established . . . constitutional

Ernesto Nunez v. Luiz Izquierdo-Mora, Etc.

834 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 30, 1987

not “clearly established.” … Thus, it was not clearly established that this position was protected from political discharge. The judgment of the district court in respect to the issue of qualified immunity is Reversed. 1 .

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

Robert Shawn Treff v. Kerry Galetka, Individually and as the Mailroom Supervisor at the Utah State Prison

74 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 1996

Galetka was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that prisoners had a First Amendment right to have their outgoing mail processed for delivery by the United States Postal Service, absent … Galetka’s qualified immunity defense, we first conclude that a prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the courts is clearly established. Nordgren v.

Latson v. Clarke

249 F. Supp. 3d 838 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 20, 2017

A court deciding the applicability of qualified immunity must determine “whether a constitutional violation occurred” and “whether the right violated was clearly established.” Tobey, 706 F.3d at 385 . … Where a plaintiff “(1) 'allege[s] a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation,” a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. Evans v.

Briaheen Thomas v. Tice

943 F.3d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As the Majority notes, qualified immunity does not shield a government official where she has “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.