Case law

Morris v. Wallace Community College-Selma

125 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jan 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … “In this circuit, the law can be 'clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

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.A.F.F. v. Gonzalez

600 F. App'x 205 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 2015

The analysis of a defense of qualified immunity involves two steps. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Hernandez ex rel. … Whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right, as required under the first step of this court’s qualified immunity analysis, is not at issue.

Clayton v. City of Kingston

44 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 23, 1999

Overcoming qualified immunity entails a two-part process: “First, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” See Connell v.

Tyquan Stewart v. Parkview Hospital

940 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2019

Police officers enjoy immunity from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or consti‐ tutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … In these circumstances, Stewart cannot establish that the officers violated a right clearly established under the Fourth Amendment, and qualified immunity ap‐ plies. Id.; see also Wilson v.

Owens v. Zade

District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 20, 2023

6 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Zade in her individual capacity at trial if he can demonstrate that the right at issue is clearly established. See [Doc. 37 at 12–13 (invoking qualified immunity)].

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.

K.D. ex rel. Duncan v. White Plains School District

921 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 5, 2013

Qualified Immunity Since Defendants have asserted a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established right, the Court begins, not with an analysis of whether KD.’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated … Legal Standard “Qualified immunity was created to shield government officials from civil liability for the performance of discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Kingsford v. Salt Lake City School District

247 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 2001

Fankell , 520 U.S. 911, 915 (1997) (“[A] Federal District Court order rejecting a qualified immunity defense on the ground that the defendant’s actions—if proved—would have violated clearly established law may be appealed … Defendant Shackett also claimed that even if such a right existed it was not clearly established at the time of the events underlying this suit, thus entitling him to qualified immunity.

Richard Winn David Ehrlich Newlin Corporation and Somerset of Virginia, Inc. v. Wayne L. Lynn

941 F.2d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 4, 1991

Qualified immunity is the more limited type of immunity, and generally protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as [their] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because their actions were violative of “clearly established statutory and constitutional rights” and they should have been aware of this.

Jonathan Davidson v. City of Stafford, Texas, et a

848 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … On the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, recent Supreme Court decisions addressing claims for excessive force have “reiterate[d] the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined

Redwood v. Lierman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … The majority's rule requiring a warrant is not only not clearly established, it is not the law. Qualified immunity applies.

Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

891 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity under Federal Law Qualified immunity under federal law protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994).

Anderson v. Board of Regents

822 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity confers complete protection upon government officials sued in their personal capacities unless their conduct “ ‘violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In addition, in order to avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiff must show that the property or liberty interest was well established and that the process he received was clearly inadequate.

Johnson v. Clifton

74 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

A public official may immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity where the disputed issue involves whether or not the defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established law. … clearly established law.

Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Center, Inc.

473 Utah Adv. Rep. 50 · Utah Supreme Court · May 13, 2003

For the Randalls to benefit from this prior decision granting immunity to DHS, they must clearly establish a relationship with DHS that legally qualifies them to receive the same treatment. 126 The Randalls argue that they … by the Randalls do not, however, clearly establish that they were employees of DHS rather than independent contractors.

Smith v. Upson County, Ga.

859 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 8, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. A.

Carew v. Centracchio

17 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Mar 4, 1998

Such officials have qualified immunity if they can prove either of the following: “the federal law allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, or ... at summary judgment, there is … no genuine dispute of material fact that would prevent a finding that the defendants’ actions, with regard to applying or following such clearly established law, were objectively *59 reasonable.”

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.”

R. H. v. ED WAGNER

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 11, 2022

When a party moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity,4 that party bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity. … ’ and ‘qualified immunity’ are used interchangeably in Georgia case law to refer to the type of immunity that sometimes shields government employees from individual liability[.]”