Case law

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 .

Hinton v. City of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Since this conclusion is sufficient to support the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach the issue of whether the law was clearly established at the time Myer and White’s conduct occurred. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that *783 issue, 857

Ty Shanaberg v. Licking Cty., Ohio

936 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2019

To overcome that immunity and make it to a jury, Shanaberg must show that (1) Stetson violated a constitutional right and (2) the violated right was clearly established when Stetson acted. Pearson v. … But I would grant qualified immunity for a different reason: it is not clearly established, in the context of this case, what level of verbal noncompliance, or “verbal belligerence,” justifies a taser’s use.

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. 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.

Eichler v. Sherbin

283 F. App'x 528 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2008

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 1 and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further consideration of whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id.

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.

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.

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

Sollenberger v. Sollenberger

173 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2016

clearly established constitutional right. … Sept. 29, 2006) (stating R.C, 311.05 establishes qualified immunity for a sheriff).

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!

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.

Cox v. County of Suffolk

780 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 10, 1991

Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability, but also a “protection against having to defend a lawsuit.” Magnotti, 918 F.2d at 367 . … clearly established at the time those acts took place.

Payne v. Hopkins

Nebraska Court of Appeals · May 23, 2017

Qualified immunity consists of two inquiries: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the … In denying Payne’s Fourth Amendment claim, the district court found that the DCS officials were entitled to qualified immunity because Payne’s right to possess the artwork was not clearly established.

Harris v. District Board of Trustees of Polk Community College

9 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1998

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s ruling on the law enforcement officer defendants, saying that they were not entitled- to qualified immunity because “their conduct violated clearly established law … The Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to the university officials in Andre because the plaintiff did not allege that they violated any clearly established law. Id. at 6.

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.

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.

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

Jaymes Stark v. Lee County IA

993 F.3d 622 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 7, 2021

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” … In the absence of a showing that Sproul acted with deliberate indifference, Stark has not established the existence of an Eighth Amendment violation.2 We therefore reverse the order denying the motion for qualified immunity