Case 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

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.

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

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

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.

Piazza v. Mayne

23 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 29, 1998

Mayne moves for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. … Qualified Immunity 1. Although Mayne enjoys no Eleventh Anendment protection, he is insulated by the qualified immunity doctrine.

Lampkin v. City of Nacogdoches

7 F.3d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 1993

As the Supreme Court has recently instructed us, the first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has "alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established Constitutional … The Court emphasized that qualified immunity shields officers from a damage suit if they could have reasonably believed their actions to be lawful, "in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting

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.

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

William Manery v. Jason Lee

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Sadallah v. City of Utica

383 F.3d 34 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2004

] reasonable[] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … Because plaintiffs have failed to establish a due process claim or any other violation of federal law, their claims are without merit. Accordingly, Hanna is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Torres v. Runyon

80 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

If the official violated a constitutional right, he or she nonetheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established such that a reasonable official “would understand that what he is doing … The next prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “ ‘a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Yarris v. County of Delaware

465 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 2006

immunity. 53 Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … If the court concludes that the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.

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.”

Warren v. Keane

937 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 1996

Nor are defendants entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … To establish the defense of qualified immunity, defendants must show either that their “conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was ‘objectively reasonable

St. John v. McColley

653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … John’s rights were clearly established. The Court finds that they were.