Case law

McCall Ex Rel. Odom v. Department of Human Resources

176 F. Supp. 2d 1355 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Nov 29, 2001

their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Lassiter v. … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

Peterson v. Foley

559 S.W.3d 346 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2018

Qualified Immunity For purposes of determining qualified immunity for government officials, the duties of those officials are categorized as either ministerial or discretionary. … Although the arguments advanced by the parties on appeal primarily concern the issue of qualified immunity, it is well-established that this Court may affirm the trial court for any reason in the record. E.g., Ky.

Harrell v. City of New York

161 F. Supp. 3d 180 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 2016

Qualified immunity shields prosecutors “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … ’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Vista McDuffie v. Hopper

982 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 23, 1997

The opinion does so by jumping directly to a discussion of whether the doctor had violated clearly established law, Id. at 721, assuming, without deciding, that qualified immunity necessarily follows § 1983 liability. … Again, however, the court does so by jumping straight to an analysis of clearly established law; it does not address the question whether private party doctors are entitled to claim qualified immunity at all.

Kelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2021

Even if the Court concluded that Officer Gaton’s use of force was not objectively reasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity so long as the use force did not violate “clearly established” law. … a “clearly established” right.

Doug Morgan v. Plano Independent School District

610 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

Qualified immunity thus shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages but only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a … Appellees’ have alleged a violation of clearly established law; therefore, Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Kesler v. King

29 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 7, 1998

With respect to Defendant Wagner’s claim of qualified immunity, the Court has already concluded that Plaintiffs have alleged violations of two clearly established constitutional rights. See Siegert v. … to show that qualified immunity does not bar recovery.

Walter Warren v. State of Missouri Dick Moore Bill Armontrout Leonard Rutledge Richard A. Anderson Richard K. Bowers Keith Heidbreder Loren Stout

995 F.2d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 1993

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Warren’s unsafe work place claim because the law governing prison working conditions was not clearly established in 1986 — since prison work is voluntary, it

Kemp v. Lawyer

846 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 8, 2012

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 person … § 1983 against Defendant Turano, I do not address the second prong of the two-part qualified immunity test-namely, whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Howard v. Board of Education of Sycamore Community Unit School District No. 427

893 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 21, 1995

Qualified Immunity Weleker contends he is entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs section 1983 claim because there is no clearly established law that he had a duty to take action in response to the students’ allegedly … Absent allegations stating a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Id.

Tolbert v. Queens College

164 F.3d 132 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 1999

the qualified immunity issue can[ ]not be resolved before trial. … the federal right allegedly infringed was “clearly established,” ....

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Jan 31, 2000

E.D. 1998), proves helpful, as the court stated: Two kinds of immunity exists for government officials absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Karchefske v. Department of Mental Health

143 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 1985

S Ct 855 ; 55 L Ed 2d 24 (1978) (qualified immunity for *6 prison officials and officers), Scheuer v Rhodes, 416 US 232 ; 94 S Ct 1683 ; 40 L Ed 2d 90 (1974) (qualified immunity for governor and other executive officers) … Clearly, the sovereign immunity of the states was well established at common law at the time that § 1983 was enacted.

Schroeder v. County of Nassau

158 F. Supp. 3d 123 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 28, 2016

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that the defendants have the burden of raising in their answer and establishing at trial or on a motion for summary judgment.”

William O. Fuller v. Joe Carollo

977 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

Carollo’s motion sought dismissal of the complaint based, in part, on qualified immunity. … The magistrate judge concluded that Carollo was not entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Jerry Farrish v. Mississippi State Parole Board

836 F.2d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 5, 1988

Qualified Immunity B. Qualified Immunity Thigpen advances the alternate proposition that even under a qualified immunity theory, he cannot be liable for damages in this case. … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Weg v. MacChiarola

995 F.2d 15 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 1993

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages.... As long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, they cannot be held liable." … Where statutory language may be easily read to cover particular conduct, a prosecution based on that language does not lose immunity absent "clearly established" caselaw to the contrary.

L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow

49 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 1995

If the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff do not establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the public official is entitled to summary judgment. … This means, in the context of a motion based on qualified immunity, that the plaintiff must show “there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant’s conduct as being violative of the clearly established law

Arnold v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

843 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 3, 1994

Certainly, its applicability is not “clearly established,” which calls into play the qualified immunity of Defendants. … “Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established

George v. McIntosh-Wilson

582 So. 2d 1058 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 24, 1991

In order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff "bears the burden of showing that 'the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.' " Barts … The defendants cannot claim qualified immunity solely on the argument that George's constitutional rights to be reasonably safe from potentially deadly objects were not clearly established at the time of the accident.