Case law

Greiner v. City of Champlin

27 F.3d 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 5, 1994

The district court held the federal claims were barred by qualified immunity and the state claims by official immunity. … An official loses immunity if, first, the law he violated was clearly established at the time of the violation, and second, the applicability of the law to his particular action was evident. Id.

Malsh v. Austin

901 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1995

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to … For the plaintiff to overcome the qualified immunity defense, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right.

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.

Thompson v. Williamson County, Tenn.

965 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 17, 1997

the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights. … In other words, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper.

Simmons v. Fabian

743 N.W.2d 281 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 31, 2007

Qualified immunity, the most common variety, protects officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … By focusing on “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” the test for qualified immunity is intended both to avoid excessively disrupting government functioning

D. Scott Forrester, Conservator of the Estate of Jerry Bass Jerry Bass v. Mary Bass Tony Dixon, Kimberly Rosa Melissa Johnson

397 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 7, 2005

Johnson and Rosa moved for summary judgment, arguing they are entitled to qualified immunity *1052 because Forrester cannot prove any violation of clearly established constitutional rights. … , For-rester has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established due process right, and Rosa and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity.

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Bd. of Trustees

479 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2007

of clearly established law. … Government officials do not enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct violates "clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

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.

A.D. v. Markgraf

636 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 2011

Markgraf moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity. … [1] To determine whether an officer such as Markgraf is entitled to qualified immunity, we inquire whether a constitu- tional right would have been violated on the facts alleged and whether the right was clearly established

Nguyen v. Grain Valley R-5 School District

353 S.W.3d 725 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2011

Where an affirmative defense is asserted in a motion to dismiss, a trial court may dismiss the petition only if the petition clearly establishes “on its face and without exception” that the defense applies and the claim is … But a “departmentally-mandated duty” may clearly arise from sources other than statutes or regulations.

Delgado v. City of New York

86 A.D.3d 502 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 28, 2011

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer involved to believe that his or her conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers

Ruffin v. Nicely

183 F. App'x 505 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2006

The burden of proving that the right was clearly established “rests squarely on the plaintiff,” Cope v. … On appeal, Ruffin has not adequately challenged the district court’s holding that any rights violated were not clearly established. Ruffin only “submits that this was a clearly established Constitutional right.”

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.”

Borucki v. Ryan

658 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1986

established and Ryan would be entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Moreover, this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, so defendant Ryan may not successfully invoke qualified good faith immunity at this stage.

Goldwire v. City of Philadelphia

130 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2015

An officer asserting an' entitlement to qualified immunity must claim that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. Behrens v. … violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

Katherine Gardenhire and Walter Gardenhire v. Donald Schubert, in His Individual and Official Capacity as Chief of Police

205 F.3d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2000

The affirmative defense of qualified, or good faith, immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established … Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated and second, establish that a reasonable officer in the

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.

Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County

798 F. Supp. 678 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 4, 1992

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court reiterated: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, however, so it may only be asserted in a 12(b)(6) motion when the “complaint itself establishes ... qualified immunity.” Green v.

Carmack v. Trombley

363 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2005

Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that “government officials performing discretionary functions” are entitled to a qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … to qualified immunity.

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

308 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

Pursuant to this doctrine, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law … Instead, Kiefer properly limits his appeal to “neat abstract issues of law” relating to qualified immunity — i.e., whether the facts alleged by the plaintiffs demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.