Case 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

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.”

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).

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

Christopher Lee Prosser v. Davis L. Ross, Co I

70 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 1995

Ross is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated Prosser’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Johnson v. … Ross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

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.

Brumley v. Utah State Tax Commission

220 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Utah Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1993

However, a plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of a constitutional or statutory right may overcome the defendant officials’ qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of … Because the constitutional rights in question were not “clearly established” during the twenty-day period, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ civil rights action on the ground of qualified immunity

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.

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

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.

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!

Moore v. Morgan

922 F.2d 1553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 7, 1991

Finally, Moore contends that even if Morgan and the commissioners did not waive the defense of qualified immunity, they did not meet their burden of establishing the defense. … He correctly stated that the test for qualified immunity is an objective one: whether reasonable county commissioners could have concluded their conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information

Wright v. Dee

54 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 1999

A state actor is qualifiedly immune where his actions did not violate rights that a reasonable person would have known were clearly established. Stuto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820, 825 (2d Cir.1999). … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Wright’s disciplinary hearing that assignment to the SHU for three years and the loss of good time credits

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.

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.”

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.

Grant v. Winik

948 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2013

Accordingly, using pepper spray under these circumstances did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law, and so the Court finds that Baran is entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. 3. … Under these circumstances, Winik’s use of deadly force did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. Accordingly, Winik is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Alexander v. City of Bessemer

142 So. 3d 543 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 18, 2013

to so-called “qualified immunity” under federal law. … It is only “when an official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’” that ‘the official is not protected by qualified immunity.’ Id.