Case law

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Session v. Wargo

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 12, 2021

rights that (1) were “clearly 9 established” at the time of the conduct, and (2) would have been known to a reasonable person in the official’s position … be undertaken and qualified immunity is appropriate).

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

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.

Sutton v. Village of Valley Stream, NY

96 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2000

A government official claiming qualified immunity bears the burden of proving either: (1) that the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) that it was … established” so as to defeat a claim for qualified immunity.

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.

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.