Case law

George v. Beaver County

32 F.4th 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2022

In the qualified-immunity context, “[a] clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Cummings v. … Thus, Rose’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the County, Noel, and Rose.

Wesley Brayman v. Mark Shepherd

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 1996

of clearly established law.'" … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 (1991) (holding that the first inquiry in a proper qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right).

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

41 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 29, 2014

(“Robles has successfully established the violation of a clearly established right and therefore qualified immunity is not appropriate. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Brown v. Smythe

780 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves to insulate governmental officials from liability for civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defendants bear the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity, and a plaintiff may overcome the official’s defense by demonstrating that his or her clearly established rights were knowingly or recklessly

Onnette v. Reed

832 S.W.2d 450 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 25, 1992

Regarding appellant’s section 1983 claim, appellees argue that “[the TDCJ employees] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Prison officials and officers may rely on qualified immunity in section 1983 actions. … To meet this burden, the plaintiff must estab *453 lish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v.

Collins v. Jordan

110 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 1996

Thus, we have jurisdiction to consider Hongisto’s legal contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that, given the events of the previous day, an order to ban all demonstrations … Such conduct would violate clearly established First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

322 Mich. App. 648 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalties in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any rights or privileges to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … The MMMA also provides that other state law inconsistent with the MMMA may not interfere with the rights established under the MMMA.

Brown v. Ridgway

845 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 29, 2012

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a clearly established

Cox v. County of Suffolk

780 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 10, 1991

Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability, but also a “protection against having to defend a lawsuit.” Magnotti, 918 F.2d at 367 . … clearly established at the time those acts took place.

Doe v. Terry

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 28, 2023

Qualified immunity is “an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct does ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Additionally, because the law was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s actions, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Salinas v. Texas Workforce Commission

573 F. App'x 370 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 2014

To evaluate a qualified immunity defense the court must inquire: “(1) whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonably in light of clearly … Salinas has not shown that any defendant violated his constitutional rights or clearly established law.

Ways v. City of Lincoln

909 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Dec 13, 1995

Because this inquiry is fact intensive, “ ‘the asserted First Amendment right’ can rarely be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.” Id. (quoting Buzek v. … by definition be “clearly established.”

Hinton v. City of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Since this conclusion is sufficient to support the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach the issue of whether the law was clearly established at the time Myer and White’s conduct occurred. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that *783 issue, 857

Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines

326 Ark. 217 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 1996

The qualified immunity claim is a claim of right which is separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the complaint. . . . … Beaumont, supra, and stated: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Virden v. Roper, 302 Ark. at 128 , 788 S.W.2d at 472 .

Rivers v. O'BRIEN

83 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 21, 2000

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him to … In order to trump qualified immunity, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated any of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights; and (2) that these rights would have been known to a reasonable

Brenda Albert v. City of Wheeling

238 W. Va. 129 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2016

Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition … To decide otherwise would risk further erosion of “well-established common law and statutory immunities which are vital to the proper functioning] of government.”

Loria v. Gorman

306 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2002

However, if we decide otherwise, we proceed to “ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time it was allegedly infringed. Id. … Appellants’ Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity from Claims Arising out of the April 10, 1998 Arrest of Loria for OGA 1.

Quartararo v. Catterson

917 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 1996

With respect to the three categories of defendants who now seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff alleges the existence of two distinct types of clearly established rights: (1) a clearly-established … a clearly established federal right.

Debera MacE Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jacob Vincent Revill, Deceased v. City of Palestine Pat Henderson

333 F.3d 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2003

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Claims of qualified immunity require a two-step analysis.

Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis

596 F.3d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects the officers from personal liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a county employee may be held personally liable for a constitutional violation only if his own conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.