Case law

Ward v. Members of the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University

700 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 24, 2010

Qualified immunity protects state officials sued in their individual capacities from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

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.

Kiddy-Brown v. Blagojevich

408 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 2005

However, the law of qualified immunity does not require a plaintiff to produce a case that is "directly on point" in order to show that a right is clearly established. Nabozny v. … Kiddy-Brown has alleged sufficient facts to meet the first part of the qualified immunity inquiry. 2. 36 We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law was clearly established when Ms.

Gordon v. Mt. Carmel Farms, L.L.C.

2021 Ohio 1233 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2021

Under this defense, "[p]ublic officials, including police officers, who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that either (1) a constitutional right was violated or (2) that the right was clearly established, -7-

Lewis v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

246 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2017

Public officials sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) a constitutional right was [not] violated or (2) the right was not clearly established [at the time of the violation].” … Rather, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is based on the contention that the Complaint does not. include facts establishing the underlying constitutional violations, which the Court has rejected. VI.

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).

Allen v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFF. OF PHILADELPHIA

644 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is “ ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ ” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (quoting Mitchell v. … In considering the second prong of the Saucier test, the Third Circuit clarified that “[a] right is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Hbrandon Lee Flagner v. Reginald Wilkinson

241 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 2001

After determining that a constitutional right is clearly established, the final step in our qualified immunity analysis is to inquire “whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts supported by sufficient evidence to … Because Flagner has not satisfied his burden to establish that the “defendant officials] violated a clearly established constitutional right,” Buckner, 36 F.3d at 539 , the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity solely

Corbin v. City of Springfield

942 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 30, 1996

Qualified Immunity Rooke alleges that she is entitled to qualified immunity on Counts VI and VII because the asserted rights of the plaintiff and his wife were not clearly established as of December 27,1991. … In weighing the defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, this court must first identify the applicable law and then determine whether this law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Walentas v. Lipper

862 F.2d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 25, 1988

Qualified Immunity. Walentas claims that the district incorrectly applied the standard of qualified immunity in concluding that Lipper was entitled to such immunity. Walentas v. … Thus, since the legal proposition argued by Wal-entas was not clearly established at the relevant time, Lipper’s conduct was protected by qualified immunity.

Wilson v. Blankenship

163 F.3d 1284 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 31, 1998

General propositions and abstractions do not qualify for bright line, clearly established law. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150. … detainees housed there or specific square footage for inmates to exercise violates no clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes, as we clarify. 1.

Bloom v. Toliver

133 F. Supp. 3d 1314 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 22, 2015

They are also entitled to qualified immunity because Bloom has not satisfied the “clearly established law” prong, as'required to defeat these defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … Hammett does not argue the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Israel E. Nelson v. Roger T. Overberg

999 F.2d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 1993

[N]o qualified immunity is' available under that set of facts. Overberg filed this timely appeal. II. A denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is appealable. Mitchell v. … Therefore, qualified immunity is not appropriate in this case.

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

Morris v. Town of Lexington Alabama

748 F.3d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … rights were “clearly established” when the defendant committed the act complained of.

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.

Medeiros v. Merced County Sheriff Deputy Clark

713 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2010

Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to *1063 qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Id. at 1005-1007. See also Bretz v.

Egolf v. Witmer

421 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Because A Reasonable Person Would Not Have Believed They Were Violating Clearly Established Rights. … The Supreme Court has directed that regardless of whether the rights at issue are ones that “a reasonable person would have known” or are “clearly established,” I must begin my evaluation of a qualified immunity defense by

SAN GERÓNIMO CARIBE PROJECT, INC. v. Vila

663 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-816 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)(citing Anderson v. … As aforementioned, when determining qualified immunity, the Court may choose to first assess whether the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiff was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Nielander v. Board of County Commissioners

582 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … -24- concluding that statement two was a true threat under clearly established federal law) cannot be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified