Case law

Smith v. Tolley

960 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 1997

Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 22 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law. … Therefore, Tolley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Prager v. LaFAVER

5 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 10, 1998

Once a defendant to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. … City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481, 1487 (11th Cir.1992) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage, but emphasizing defendants’ right to assert the qualified immunity defense in subsequent proceedings

Brittany Harris v. Kimberly Klare

902 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … “When . . . a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense . . . [t]he plaintiff has the burden of showing that a right is clearly established . . .

Victoria v. City of San Diego

326 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2018

In suits under § 1983, 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 … In general, the doctrine of qualified 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

Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's County, Maryland

309 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 30, 2002

official's conduct did not violate clearly established law." … qualified immunity doctrine as set forth in Harlow v.

McLean v. McElhaney

289 Mich. App. 592 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2010

under MCL 691.1407(5) or qualified immunity under MCL 691.1407(2). 10 Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, *605 479-480 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). … We note that if the trial court determines that Harma was entitled to absolute immunity under MCL 691.1407(5), it need not also determine whether he was entitled to qualified immunity under MCL 691.1407(2).

Williams v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENN.

586 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 18, 2008

If the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, the second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the violated right was clearly established. Id. … was clearly established); Boger v.

McCabe v. Caleel

739 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Application of the qualified immunity concept to McCabe’s situation is simple: It has not been “clearly established” even now, let alone when Board’s members acted back in the late 1970s, that the fact (if it is a fact) of

Mooneyham v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EX'RS

802 So. 2d 200 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 11, 2001

The defendants argue that they are immune from suit as to this claim because, they say, Mooneyham has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. We agree. … The threshold question for determining whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to a given constitutional claim is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly recognized constitutional right.

People v. Bylsma

294 Mich. App. 219 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2011

SECTION 4 IMMUNITY The MMMA provides a registration system for “qualifying patients” and “primary caregivers.” 3 See MCL 333.26426. … to immunity under § 4(b) of the MMMA.

Smith v. Anderson

874 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

To do so, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a clearly establish statutory or constitutional right. Id. … In such circumstances, the officers responsible for their detention are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. That is the situation here.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 19, 2001

The city might further face liability under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , for the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

McLin v. Twenty-First Judicial Dist

79 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis to address first.38 Our inquiry starts and ends with the clearly established prong, whether Chief Judge Morrison violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2010

immunity. 4 Specifically, the court held that these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the performance of MUAs by licensed chiropractors in California was legal. … In its December 24, 2009 order the court held that because it was not clearly established that the performance of MUAs was lawful, defendants Weydert and Coffey were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ claims under

Robbins v. Regents of University of California

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2005

The trial court agreed that Suris was entitled to immunity, finding there was no evidence of a constitutional violation (and even if there was such a violation, it was not one of clearly established law), by virtue of LaVine … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity.

Rivers v. O'BRIEN

83 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 21, 2000

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him to … In order to trump qualified immunity, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated any of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights; and (2) that these rights would have been known to a reasonable

Brown v. Smythe

780 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves to insulate governmental officials from liability for civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defendants bear the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity, and a plaintiff may overcome the official’s defense by demonstrating that his or her clearly established rights were knowingly or recklessly

James Carver, Administrator of the Estate of David Allen Carver, Deceased v. City of Cincinnati

474 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

repeatedly without ever becoming clearly established. … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. III. CONCLUSION The Cincinnati police officers and EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity.

Cleavinger v. Saxner

474 U.S. 193 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 10, 1985

To be sure, the line between absolute immunity and qualified immunity often is not an easy one to perceive and structure. … Petitioners state that they have not challenged — although they do not concede— the ruling that they violated “clearly established constitutional rights” of respondents. See Brief for Petitioners 7, n. 8.

Weaver v. Brenner

40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly Established Right 23 The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … the relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.