Case law

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.”

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).

Denning v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

564 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 16, 2008

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised by the defendant, it becomes the plaintiffs burden to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Untalan v. … The second question in determining the applicability of qualified immunity — whether Denning had a clearly established constitutional right not to be fired upon — is therefore moot.

Billingsley v. St. Louis County

70 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 1995

It held that government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have a clearly established right to be free from patronage dismissals.

Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department

962 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 1992

The court concluded in Ansley that “[t]he Supreme Court’s qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law … ’ conduct violated that clearly established law?

Jiron v. City of Lakewood

392 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2004

Having found no violation of a constitutional or statutory right, we need not address whether any such right was “clearly established.” … However, when a finding of qualified immunity is based on a conclusion that the officer has committed no constitutional violation – i.e., the first step of the qualified immunity analysis – a finding of qualified immunity

Singleton v. Cannizzaro

372 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 28, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged *411 conduct." 71 " … immunity from such claims because no constitutional violation occurred and, even if it did, the Defendants did not violate a "clearly established" right.

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.

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.

Badder v. Schmidt

50 F. Supp. 3d 902 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 7, 2014

with qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. at 816 .

Ricky Tatum v. Willie Robinson

858 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 2017

The district court denied Robinson qualified immunity. Robinson appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Mitchell v. … To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff “must present sufficient facts to show not only (1) that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, but also (2) that the right was clearly established

West v. City of Parsons

983 F. Supp. 1027 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 31, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants Dunning, Gofourth, Rask, and Steenrod all claim qualified immunity as to plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims resulting from the search of his apartment. … Further, Gofourth and Steenrod claim qualified immunity as to plaintiffs excessive force claims.

BK v. Toumpas

909 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields ... state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) that the right was clearly established … In any event, a single decision from another district court does not provide the "fair warning” of clearly established law necessary to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Lynch v.

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

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

Bischoff v. Calhoun County Prosecutor

173 Mich. App. 802 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1988

which is essentially investigative or administrative and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Gary Vickery, Cross-Appellee v. Janell Jones, William Pearman and Kirk Brown, and Saline County Republican Central Committee and William Roberts

100 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1996

Second, if so, was the unconstitutionality clearly established or are the state defendants entitled to qualified immunity? Third, did [the plaintiff] suffer an injury by virtue of the defendants’ actions? … Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Washington v. Buraker

322 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jun 23, 2004

If the answer to that threshold question is yes, the officer may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the events at issue. Clem v. … established now, and was clearly established in 1983.

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.

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.