Case law

Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC v. Tunica County, Miss.

543 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

An uncertain right cannot be “a clearly established” right. Qualified immunity applies to the claim that Sheriff Hamp violated Due Process rights. … Unlike in the determination of qualified immunity for the Sheriff, the County cannot rely on there being no clearly established right when the Sheriff acted.

White v. Martin

26 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 19, 1998

In a section 1983 action, qualified immunity shields an official sued in his individual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

Estate of Davis Ex Rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills

406 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 2005

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.”17 Qualified immunity is … violated clearly established law.

Gauthier v. Town of Dracut

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 579 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 27, 2005

Qualified Immunity The defendants claim as an affirmative defense that Shaw and Piendak are entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … , those rights were clearly established.

Hernandez v. Causey

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · May 4, 2021

CAUSEY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In his Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity, Causey argues there is no evidence that he violated a clearly established right when he … right and 2) whether the right was clearly established.

Harris v. Board of Education

105 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … him his salary and benefits violated clearly established law.

Campbell v. District of Columbia

245 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

“Qualified immunity prevents officials who violate the law from having to defend against lawsuits for money damages unless the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken gave those officials … Accordingly, under clearly established precedent, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, on the undisputed facts, the officers would have had “fair warning” that they

David K. Huskey v. City of San Jose Joan Gallo George Rios Ralph Greene

204 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2000

immunity because the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … immunity because those rights were not clearly established.

Porter Ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Ascension Parish School Board

301 F. Supp. 2d 576 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jan 21, 2004

Whether Conrad Braud is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity Qualified-immunity protects officials from section 1983 liability provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, the Court finds that Braud is entitled to qualified immunity even if Adam’s rights were found to be clearly established. 126 2.

Calderón-Garnier v. Sánchez-Ramos

439 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2006

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct at issue.

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

225 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2002

Defendants argue in their reply brief for the first time that they are also covered by qualified immunity in that they have not violated any clearly established rights. … Qualified Immunity In their reply brief, the Defendants raise for the first time the defense of qualified immunity from suit.

Washington v. Fenty

611 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

were violated were not clearly established. … A defense of qualified immunity fails only if the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Hodgson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

963 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 30, 1997

The Defendants, however, insist that this claim be dismissed on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. 13 Government officials may raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to actions … Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ).

Glenda Smith v. City of Wyoming

821 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2016

It is sufficient to hold that, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Smith, Officer Riggs did not violate clearly established law, and he therefore was protected by qualified immunity. … Turning to the clearly established law question, we must first ask whether the Ohio law defining obstruction of official business is clearly established. We conclude that it is.

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.

Teresa Graham v. Shannon Barnette

970 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

The officers respond that probable cause is not the correct standard and that, even if it was, the standard was not clearly established, meaning they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.

Tricoci v. Blackman

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 27, 2024

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a discretionary function that is objectively lawful in light of clearly established law and the information an officer possessed at the time. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78 (2017) ("Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or which a reasonable person would have known.")

Elizabeth Fujiwara v. Charles G. Clark, Etc.

703 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 1983

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Manzer v. TOWN OF ANSON

771 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 2011

The Plaintiffs then argue that the second element of the qualified immunity test — whether their rights were clearly established — is met. Id. at 12-13. … The Barton Court, in its own qualified immunity analysis, held that in 2006 and 2007, it was clearly established that a campaign of harassment could support a First Amendment retaliation claim if the harassment would deter

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.