Case law

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.

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.

Trulock v. Freeh

275 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Defendants, having violated no clearly established law, were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Harris v. Board of Education

105 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … him his salary and benefits violated clearly established law.

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: "(1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?" … Further, Marquez argues that a prison official cannot act maliciously and sadistically while, at the same time, reasonably believing that his actions conform to clearly established law.

Gustafson v. Thomas

75 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 2014

City of Chic., 865 F.2d 827 , 846 (7th Cir. 1989) (examining only cases decided before the events at issue in analyzing how clearly established the law was for qualified immunity). … Whatever the implications of potential violations of Illinois law, these alleged violations have no bearing on whether the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. .

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

Donna Lowe v. Town of Fairland, Oklahoma Beverly Hill Don Jones Shirley Mangold and Loretta Vinyard

143 F.3d 1378 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 14, 1998

Consequently, when the qualified immunity defense is raised, the defendant should be spared the burden of proceeding with the litigation until the plaintiff establishes that the defendant’s alleged actions violated clearly … established law.

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.'"

Curley v. Klem

499 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2007

step is whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … The District Court clearly saw that problem in this case.

Hogan ex rel. J.H. v. County of Lewis

929 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their capacity from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … The party invoking qualified immunity bears the burden of offering proof that it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate a clearly established right and that she is entitled to qualified

Ciolino v. Eastman

128 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 3, 2015

Second Prong: Clearly Established Right The disputes of fact discussed above also preclude the Court from finding that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not “clearly established,” such that Defendants would … be entitled to qualified immunity on the second prong of the test.

Muszik v. Town of Redington Shores, Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2024

Callahan, 55 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (courts considering qualified immunity are permitted to address whether a constitutional right is clearly established before determining whether it was violated). … A plaintiff seeking to meet her burden under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis can demonstrate that a right or law was clearly established in three ways. See, e.g., Loftus v.

Oden v. Reader

935 S.W.2d 470 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Nov 26, 1996

To be entitled to summary judgment on the affirmative defense of qualified official immunity, Oden must establish that: (1) his position as county attorney has quasi-judicial status; (2) it was within his authority as county … Thus, the first two prongs of the qualified immunity defense have been proven by Oden.

Stadt v. University of Rochester

921 F. Supp. 1023 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 15, 1996

The Defendant is not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … Ordinarily, government officials sued in their individual capacities are' entitled to qualified immunity from suit for damages so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights

Odom v. Wayne County

482 Mich. 459 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2008

Contrary to defendant’s position, Ross clearly provides governmental employees qualified immunity from intentional-tort liability at common law. … Thus, the proponent of individual immunity must establish that he acted without malice.

Charlene Bush, Wife John Bush, Husband v. David Rauch D. Brad Campbell, Individually and Officially

38 F.3d 842 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity and are protected from civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In the instant case, Campbell is at the least entitled to qualified immunity. The Bushes have not affirmatively articulated, nor does the record indicate, any clearly established right allegedly violated by Campbell.

Lorenzo Fernandez v. Gregorio Perez

937 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1991

Fernandez contends the law at the time of the arrest was clearly-established that probable cause to arrest him was lacking. … Thus, Officer Perez acted reasonably in arresting and detaining him and enjoys qualified immunity for the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff.

Thomas v. Town of Salisbury

277 F. Supp. 3d 161 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2017

right that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Justice Thompson argued that the majority had construed “the clearly-established-right prong” of the qualified immunity analysis too narrowly, and required that the precedent be too directly on point before an official could