Case law

Gragg v. Kentucky Cabinet for Workforce Development

289 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2002

Garrett, 880 S.W.2d 530, 534 (Ky.1994)) To prevail against a defense of qualified immunity a plaintiff must first establish the constitutional right that she claims was violated by the defendants. Wilson v. … She must then demonstrate that this right was clearly established at the time of the infringement.

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.

Pearce v. Estate of Longo

766 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

to qualified immunity. … Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Hyland v. Wonder

117 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 1997

The defendants asserted qualified immunity. … The district court granted the individual defendants summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, finding that it was not “clearly established” in 1989 that a government volunteer possessed the same First Amendment

Rehberg v. Paulk

611 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory … immunity because Rehberg’s right to be free from a retaliatory investigation is not clearly established.

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 2003

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

Tague v. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

390 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 25, 2005

the clearly established right to work. 42 Plaintiff then cites Harlow v. … Qualified immunity’s protection exists as long as the official’s conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Garner v. Steger

69 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 2014

Third, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. … The court next turns to the second prong of qualified immunity — whether the employment action here violated Garner’s clearly established rights.

Showers v. Spangler

957 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1997

of clearly established law.” … While we conclude here that Johnson is correct in so finding, we must also conclude that this was not clearly established law in April of 1993. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Supra Medical Corp. v. McGonigle

955 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1997

The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity under one of the exceptions in § 1605. … The UMDS Defendants have provided no evidence of UMDS’ ownership, relying instead on a claim that the Schools’ qualify for immunity as an “organ of a foreign state.”

Austin v. Hamilton

945 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

Qualified Immunity 16 In assessing a defense of qualified immunity, the court must determine the objective reasonableness of the challenged conduct by reference to the law clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional … That standard was clearly established at the time the challenged incident took place." 20 Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456, 1461-62 (10th Cir.1991).

Maher ex rel. Estate of Maher v. Oklahoma ex rel. Tourism & Recreation Department

165 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 29, 2016

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’ ” Wood v. … Qualified Immunity The Court must still consider whether Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to overcome Defendant Young’s defense of qualified immunity.

Schwartz v. Pridy

874 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 18, 1995

Government officials performing discretionary functions are provided with qualified immunity from a civil rights damages action if their challenged conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires a determination of whether the constitutional right in question was “clearly established.” Id.

Maritza Amador v. Bexar County

952 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2020

Flores’s Fourth Amendment Right Was Clearly Established The second question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from shooting Flores in these circumstances … We cannot “‘define clearly established law at a high level of generality,’” id.

Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health

632 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

The district court held, in the alternative, that “Clairmont’s First Amendment right was not so ‘clearly established’ as to preclude qualified immunity for Ms. Wilson.” … SOUND MENTAL HEALTH immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. “If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

Inspector Winston’s Qualified Immunity We begin our evaluation of the qualified immunity issue by setting forth Mr. Maltb/s allegations against Inspector Winston. In his complaint, Mr. … City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir.1994) ("The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.”); Apostol v.

Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Suffolk County

87 F. Supp. 3d 386 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 20, 2015

Even if a state actor deprives an individual of his constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields that government official from civil liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In particular, the Second Circuit has held that courts should cloak defendants with qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage "only 'if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 513, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 835 Mary Ann Carlo v. City of Chino, and Officer Hector Guerra

105 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Further, the court held that even if such a right does exist, it was not clearly established when Carlo was arrested; and, therefore, Guerra was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity asks what law was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. In 1991, the Helms test was the clearly established law.

Edward v. GEC, LLC

67 V.I. 745 · Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · Aug 1, 2017

However, it is equally “well-established that a party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.” *756 Gov’t of the V.I. v. … Additionally, courts in other jurisdictions have repeatedly interpreted similar workers’ compensation immunity statutes as not establishing limits on subject-matter jurisdiction, but simply codifying affirmative defenses

Hal Stanley v. Asa Hutchinson

12 F.4th 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damages actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Finally, even if the Fourth Amendment applies in this situation, an issue we do not decide, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit when the Stanley children