Case law

Smith v. Allbaugh

987 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 2021

Constitutional Violation A public official or employee is entitled to qualified immunity unless “clearly established” federal rights of which a reasonable person would have known are shown to have been violated. … Once a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.” Morris v.

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Qualified immunity "shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity defense fails to bar the First Amendment claim.

Dent v. Montgomery County Police Department

745 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Megan Winfrey v. Keith Pikett

872 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

He contends that the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity because the scent lineups did not violate Megan’s clearly established constitutional rights for two reasons. … violated clearly established law.”

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not " 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did not offer a rational explanation for basing his

Smith v. Township of Prairieville

194 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 11, 2016

Accordingly, no constitutional violation occurred, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for this claim. 2. The right was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right Detective Gustafson also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity “because it was not clearly established in this particular context that opéning a utensil drawer during a consensual search

Smith v. Barber

195 F. Supp. 2d 1264 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 22, 2002

right allegedly implicated was clearly established”). … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Taylor v. Russell

181 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 24, 2001

In defense of Plaintiffs equal protection claims, Defendants assert qualified immunity. 1. Qualified Immunity. … “Qualified” or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Guirlaine O'Rourke v. Martin Trujillo

378 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2004

To be even potentially eligible for qualified immunity, the official has the burden of establishing that he was acting “within the scope of his discretionary authority.” Hartsfield v. … When qualified immunity is asserted in the context of a motion to dismiss, we look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.

Harvey Levin v. Lisa Madigan

692 F.3d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2012

Accord- ingly, Judge Coar believed that the constitutional right was not clearly established and qualified immunity was appropriate. Id. … Because Levin’s constitutional right was clearly established, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

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

Roniger v. McCall

22 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 15, 1998

of qualified immunity, public officials are shielded from liabili *162 ty for civil damages if they establish that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In determining the availability of a qualified immunity defense, the rights alleged to have been violated must be identified, and a determination as to whether they were “clearly established” must be - made!

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.”

Collins v. School Board of Dade County

981 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1993

Most important for qualified immunity purposes, Loudermill established no bright line test for when a delay would become a constitutional violation. 4 See generally Barts v. … Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1194 (11th Cir.1989) (“Harlow’s ‘clearly established’ standard requires that a bright line be crossed” if defense of qualified immunity is to be overcome).

Armendariz v. Penman

31 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a federal claim, Siegert, 500 U.S. at 233 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793-94 ; or if in light of clearly established principles … Clearly Established The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Baker v.

Bender v. City of Seattle

99 Wash. 2d 582 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 1983

We believe a qualified privilege will adequately protect police officers in releasing information to the public and press. It is then the plaintiff's burden to establish an abuse of that qualified privilege to recover. … Seattle Times, supra at 492 n.5, proof of an abuse of a qualified privilege must be established by clear and convincing evidence, not simply by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ronald K. Drewitt v. Fred L. Pratt Pizza Hut of America, Inc., City of Norfolk, Party-In-Interest

999 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 1993

Accordingly, because no clearly established constitutional right was violated, the district court held that Officer Pratt was clearly entitled to qualified immunity on such claim. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one "clearly established,” or that, though "clearly established,” (and violated), it was one that a

McKinney ex rel. McKinney v. DeKalb County

997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established constitutional right, and second, whether, viewed most favorably to … Under the test for qualified immunity, Officer Nelsen could avoid liability for discretionary functions if his alleged conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Brawley v. Punt

186 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, D. Montana · May 11, 2016

On the other hand, because the law may not be clearly established, Officer Punt could be entitled to qualified immunity as a mat *1109 ter of law. The constitutional question is addressed first below. See Plumhoff v. … to qualified immunity.

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