Case law

Jeffries v. Ayoub

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … If, as a matter of law, the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, then Ayoub is qualifiedly immune.

Heggs v. Grant

73 F.3d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 1996

On the appeal of a nonfinal order denying qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to decide whether the conduct complained of violated "clearly established statutory or … No clearly established law required him to take further measures to protect her.

Madiwale v. Savaiko

117 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 1997

Lanier, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 1227, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997).1 The qualified immunity inquiry, then, must establish first, whether the defendant government official was performing a discretionary function … Thus, we cannot say that Savaiko violated clearly established law by reporting Madiwale to the DPR, and she is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Rasanen Ex Rel. Estate of Rasanen v. Brown

603 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

Here, Brown and Etherton seek summary judgment on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Burge v. Ferguson

619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 16, 2008

established Fourth Amendment right. 12 Accordingly, qualified immunity is unavailable at this stage. … But see Thomas, 463 F.3d at 293-94 (concluding that “a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.”). 8 ."

Charles Ivey v. Pat Hamlin

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Mar 18, 2002

violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the rights he or she is asserting have been clearly established. Perkins v.

Rettele v. Los Angeles County

186 F. App'x 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 21, 2006

Having determined that Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, if true, may establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to whether the law was clearly established, such that a reasonable officer would have known … to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

114 F. Supp. 3d 323 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 26, 2015

Gillock, the Supreme Court acknowledged its grant of “common-law absolute immunity from civil suit” to state legislators in Tenney v. Brandhove, but qualified its holding. Id. at 372 , 100 S.Ct. 1185 . … The state legislative privilege — like state legislative immunity — likewise may become qualified based on the nature of the claim at issue.

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.

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. .

Hatheway v. Thies

335 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 18, 2003

In arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity, the detectives contend that (1) the law was not clearly established as to whether Mr. … Denial of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is available to government officials when “their -11- conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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

Fabrikant v. French

691 F.3d 193 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 16, 2012

arguendo that the SPCA investigators were state actors, they would be entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Analysis “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutorily or constitutional rights of

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.

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."

Wiley v. Doory

14 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 27, 1994

The only issue before this Court is whether Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 4 * Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer's "conduct does not violate … Thus, appellant Doory is entitled to qualified immunity.

Lamonte Jackson-Gibson v. Reginald Beasley

118 F.4th 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.”

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

Pisciotti v. County of Wayne

76 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 21, 1999

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Further, even if the plaintiffs rights were clearly established, a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if at the time of the challenged act it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions