Case law

Richardson v. City of Antioch

722 F. Supp. 2d 1133 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 13, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Based on clearly established precedent, the Court also finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest of KC. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 2.

Haldeman v. Total Petroleum, Inc.

376 N.W.2d 98 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Oct 16, 1985

If the immunity provided by it were intended to be only a qualified one, we believe the legislature would have added words to so indicate. … It was error on the part of the trial court to submit the issue as a qualified privilege. It should have dismissed Haldeman’s libel claim against Total based upon statutory immunity. III. The Qualified Privilege.

Baker v. Clover

177 Ariz. 37 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 25, 1993

Civil rights liability is, however, circumscribed by qualified immunity. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken____” Anderson v.

Martinez v. Simonetti

202 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 4, 2000

Whether Officer Heinz-Faljean was a witness to the physical altercation is not clearly established in the present record. … light of clearly established law and the information the officer[ ] possessed.”

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kirksey

885 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 19, 1989

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless their actions violated clearly established law.” Garionis, 827 F.2d at 308 (citations omitted). … Ordinarily, a qualified immunity defense will fail if, as here, the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Hines v. Proper

442 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2006

Qualified immunity extends to a government official if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.”

Tamara Brand v. Kevin Casal

877 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2017

“Clearly Established” Law Having concluded that Deputy Pardinas’s conduct violated a constitutional right, the next question in our qualified immunity analysis is whether that constitutional right was “clearly established … Brand’s right to bodily privacy was clearly established. We affirm the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity on the Brands’ bodily-privacy claim. 17 IV.

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because “Cribett’s actions and those of his superior Mackey and his employer MRDD did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which Defendant

Kollaritsch v. Mich. State Univ. Bd. of Trs.

298 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 2, 2017

Defendant Maybank is not entitled to qualified immunity for the Equal Protection claim brought by Gross. Plaintiffs have established that the relevant rights were clearly established by 2012. … Because the law was clearly established at the time, Defendant Maybank's request for qualified immunity for the Equal Protection claim is denied.

Armstrong v. Ashley

918 F.3d 419 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2019

A decision on qualified immunity can be an appealable final decision, "but only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the facts[.]" … Typically, this determination is a decision on "whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established." Behrens v.

Locurto v. Safir

264 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2001

Defendants further asserted they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … In such a case, the qualified immunity doctrine focuses only on whether the government official’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, without regard for possible subjective malice.

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?

Richard Christopher Johnson v. City of Miami Beach

18 F.4th 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2021

Qualified Immunity We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Cantu, 974 F.3d at 1228. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

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.

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.

Miley v. Housing Authority

926 F. Supp. 2d 420 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 25, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability where the officials’ conduct was not in violation of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Sudler v. … by qualified immunity.”

Meyer v. Town of Buffalo

482 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the judge noted, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendants’ actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and that the right violated was clearly … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam), for the principle that an officer must be granted qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed, a reasonable officer

May v. Higgins

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 24, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields them from liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that reasonable officials would not have known their actions were unlawful.

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