Case law

Gaffey v. Illinois Dept of Juvenile Justice

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public officials from damages liability unless the evidence shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument against qualified immunity to be flawed, however, as it frames “clearly established” law at too high a level of generality.

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,” ....

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.

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.

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.

Larry Hope v. Mark Pelzer, Gene McClaran

240 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

’s qualified immunity analysis. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Radloff v. City of Oelwein

284 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · May 19, 2003

Conclusions of Law Qualified Immunity A government official who performs discretionary functions is protected from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity as long as the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established … The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs claim of excessive force. The right against unreasonable seizure of one’s person is clearly established law.

Lisa Price v. Montgomery County

72 F.4th 711 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 5, 2023

To overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of … Miller has neither proven that violating a court order constitutes a constitutional violation, nor that such a violation is clearly established. As a result, Craycraft is entitled to qualified immunity.

Cavanaugh v. Bartelt

178 F. Supp. 3d 819 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Apr 12, 2016

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and (2) whether that right *833 was clearly established

Bell v. City of Los Angeles

835 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 20, 2011

establish constitutional precedent on questions that do not frequently arise in cases in which a qualified immunity defense is unavailable; and when few judicial resources would be conserved by considering only the “clearly … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson v.

Perez v. ZAYAZ

396 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity. In the alternative, defendants have raised qualified immunity defense. … A qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “The first inquiry is whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiffs was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Fisher v. City of Las Cruces

584 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity.” … Clearly Established Law The next question is whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful incident.

McMorrow v. Little

109 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that MeMorrow’s claim must be dismissed. … Again we conclude that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that this conduct was unconstitutional.

Demetrius Rashard Luke v. Jameel H. Gulley

50 F.4th 90 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2022

DISCUSSION Law enforcement officers enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages for their discretionary acts when their conduct does not violate a federal right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Our precedents agree—an officer who seeks an arrest warrant based on a ‘conclusory affidavit’ that ‘clearly is insufficient to establish prob- able cause’ is not entitled to qualified immunity.”

Morabito ex rel. Estate of Morabito v. Holmes

628 F. App'x 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 2015

We have “jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir.2009) (citing Kirby v. … The qualified immunity inquiry for the denial of medical care similarly looks to see whether there was a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.