Case law

Doe Ex Rel. Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services

597 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2010

Qualified immunity from § 1983 claims “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 … of clearly established law.”); Swanson v.

T.S.H. v. Green

996 F.3d 915 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 11, 2021

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. The district court concluded, however, that the students adequately alleged violations of clearly established constitutional and statutory rights. … The officers thus did not violate the students’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, so they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B.

Richard Ortega v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

737 F.3d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 2013

In a qualified-immunity case, a court may reject the constitutional claim on either of two grounds — either because no such constitutional right existed or because the constitutional right was not clearly established at the … clearly established at the time.

González v. Moreno

202 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 16, 2016

Qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectionably reasonable as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were “clearly established … The Court need not address whether any constitutional violation alleged here was . clearly established since Plaintiffs’ complaint fails at the first step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Heller v. Fulare

371 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2005

Therefore, on this issue, qualified immunity is denied. … As for the applicability of qualified immunity to the remaining claims in Count II and the remaining Counts of the Complaint, the Court denies qualified immunity without prejudice to raise this immunity within a second motion

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 .

Marshall v. Montaplast of N. Am., Inc.

575 S.W.3d 650 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2019

This Court held that the rule prohibiting noncompete agreements qualified as such. Id. … Immunity is a shield. It frees a party from the burden of litigation. It does not create a sword or a right to engage in an act.

The Schatz Family v. Gierer

399 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 24, 2004

the motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … In short, even if the plaintiffs' could be said to have stated a violation of their constitutional rights, the Court finds that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established

Bozeman v. Orum

199 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 12, 2002

To resolve the qualified-immunity question, therefore, a determination as to whether this incident implicates a clearly established constitutional right must be made. … Without clearly established law to guide the officer’s actions, qualified immunity applies. Summary judgment is due on the fourth-amendment excessive-force claim against the officers. 3.

Garcia Ex Rel. Merino v. Brown

442 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 2, 2006

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … The Circuit concluded, however, that this type of implicit liability was not so clearly established as to bar dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity. Pena, 432 F.3d at 114-15 . 3 .

Cora Arrington v. William McDonald Robert Nill

808 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a defendant may establish an entitlement to qualified immunity by “proving either that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged … injury, or, if the law was clearly established, that he neither knew or should have known of the relevant standard due to extraordinary circumstances.”

Romero v. City of Clanton

220 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2002

When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a constitutional right is asserted, then determine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v. … is clearly established.

Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

345 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2018

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Nonetheless, Linder is still entitled to qualified immunity for this claim if the constitutional rights implicated were not clearly established.

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

732 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 19, 1990

Those Courts go on to reason that if the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail. Id. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune. Id.

Hudson v. Hudson

475 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007

Page 3 liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001), to decide first whether the defendant’s conduct violated a federal right held by the plaintiff, id., and second whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Melgar Ex Rel. Melgar v. Greene

593 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 29, 2010

The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting clearly established law too generally for fear of allowing plaintiffs “to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply … In light of the foregoing principles, we hold that qualified immunity is appropriate because Officer Greene did not violate clearly established law in his search for a missing boy who faced serious potential injury.

Eileen McAfee v. Christine Boczar

738 F.3d 81 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 12, 2013

Qualified immunity serves to protect a government official from liability for civil damages unless the facts alleged show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right … And this constitutional right is clearly established. See Miller v.

Rodriguez v. WOLBACH

499 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2007

However, if a constitutional violation is *488 proven, “the next ... step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 92 Qualified immunity applies unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional … his conduct was unlawful.’ ” 115 If an official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, that official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Citrano v. Allen Correctional Center

891 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 14, 1995

Nor does it follow that the Court intended to establish a bright line rule that private parties can never be shielded by qualified immunity. … This immunity is only defeated if the official took the complained of action “with the mahcious intention to cause a deprivation of rights,” or the official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Johnson v. Morris

445 N.W.2d 563 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Oct 19, 1989

If the law allegedly violated is clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since reasonably competent public officials should know the law governing their conduct. Harlow v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. * * * ” Id.