Case law

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Joseph E. Birrell v. Robert Brown, Director, Michigan Dept. Of Corrections

867 F.2d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1989

Upon reference, the magistrate reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations and reported in a twenty page recommendation that the defendants could not establish qualified immunity to insulate themselves under the circumstances. … A prison official’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity should be denied only when he acts intentionally, or when his alleged actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would

Williams v. Morahan

539 F. App'x 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2013

Under well-established precedent, Officer Morahan is entitled to qualified immunity unless Mr. … None of those authorities, however, can create clearly established law for purposes of federal qualified immunity analysis. See Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 , 1033 n. 10 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc). Cf.

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

Raymond E. Humphrey v. Duane M. Mabry Kevin George and Kevin Wheeler

482 F.3d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity The defense 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 … Accordingly, we move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. 2. Were the rights “clearly established”?

Orraca Figueroa v. Torres Torres

288 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 14, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants have moved for summary judgment, alleging that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

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.

Jackson v. Bush

448 F. Supp. 2d 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2006

Accordingly, only in cases where an official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” can he be denied immunity. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … R.Civ.P. 25(d), a qualified immunity defense primarily serves to immunize un-served defendants Ashcroft, Rove, and Libby.

White v. Gurnon

67 Mass. App. Ct. 622 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 30, 2006

Was the right clearly established!? … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from monetary liability in their personal capacity provided the official’s conduct did not violate an individual’s rights that were “clearly established” under

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.

Transit Authority of River City v. Bibelhauser

432 S.W.3d 171 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 27, 2013

Governmental immunity is granted to agencies that have been established by an immune entity and that perform a “ ‘function integral to state government.’ ” Comair, Inc. v. … First, the court is to examine the origin, or “parent,” of the entity to determine if the entity is an agency (or alter ego) of a clearly immune parent. Id.

Hutton v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk

45 Mass. App. Ct. 304 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 13, 1998

“clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hutton’s rights were not clearly established, and the defendants, therefore, enjoy immunity from suit under the § 1983 claim and under the common law false imprisonment claim. 6 The defendants’ motions for summary judgment