Case law

Arnold v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

843 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 3, 1994

Certainly, its applicability is not “clearly established,” which calls into play the qualified immunity of Defendants. … “Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established

Nesmith Through Nesmith v. Grimsley

702 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 7, 1988

Plaintiff objects to the finding of qualified immunity. … The United States Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity in Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Carlin v. Manu

72 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 1999

established” one which would foreclose the defendants from qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Gorman v. Bartch

152 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 1998

The defendants argue in response that their conduct did not violate clearly established rights under the statutes. 8 We review de novo the decision granting qualified immunity. Rowe v. … Id., 502 U.S. at 25-27 , 112 S.Ct. at 362. 20 The defense of qualified immunity gives government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from liability unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory

Adams v. City of Shreveport

269 F. Supp. 3d 743 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 28, 2017

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … This right is a clearly established right for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See id.

Stewart v. City of Prairie Village

904 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 17, 2012

immunity, Plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established. 23 The Court “cannot find qualified immunity wherever we have a new fact pattern.” 24 The Tenth Circuit has “shifted the qualified immunity analysis from … A plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right for each defendant in a § 1983 suit who claims qualified immunity; 47 § 1983 does not give a plaintiff a right of action against an individual

Mitchell v. Rice

954 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

On the other hand, if the law was not so clearly established as to give notice to a reasonable prison official, we must permit appellants an immunity defense and dismiss this case against them. … Because the record in this case does not adequately address all the issues necessary to determine whether prison officials violated clearly established law, we cannot grant qualified immunity at this time.

Cavanaugh v. Bartelt

178 F. Supp. 3d 819 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Apr 12, 2016

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and (2) whether that right *833 was clearly established

Hora v. Risner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 24, 2021

immunity analysis is whether the law was clearly established. 2. … Clearly Established Law? In Plumhoff v.

Carr v. Tatangelo

156 F. Supp. 2d 1369 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 31, 2001

If there was no underlying constitutional violation, then Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether the law was clearly established. See Hartley v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because they were unaware that Carr had been shot and because Carr has not shown that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Paul v. City of Rochester

452 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2006

City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (6th Cir.2005) (defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it had not been clearly established that tackling plaintiff under the circumstances constituted excessive force); Soares … The City did not raise qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. 8 .

Parker v. Board of Regents of the Tulsa Junior College

981 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 1992

Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” … facts are in dispute which would defeat the claim of qualified immunity.

Brogdon v. City of New Rochelle

200 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2002

Furthermore, both Benge and Chiera are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court has recently defined what it means for a law to be “clearly established” in the context of a qualified immunity defense: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours

Fisher v. City of Las Cruces

584 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity.” … Clearly Established Law The next question is whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful incident.

Ecclesiastical Washington v. Larry Denney

900 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2018

The officials appeal, arguing that (1) Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth Amendment rights and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity; and … Discussion The corrections officials appeal, arguing that (1) they are entitled to qualified immunity because Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth

Brockington v. Boykins

637 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 22, 2011

The court also denied Boykins’ motion to dismiss on the doctrine of qualified immunity in a one-sentence order that contained no reasoning. The denial of qualified immunity is an immediately appeal- able order. … "Qualified immunity shields government officials perform- ing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Alfred Garionis, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Harriet Newton and Keith Barr, Appellees/cross-Appellants

827 F.2d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 1987

Newton and Barr are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2818 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Harlow v. … It follows a fortiori that neither the *309 arrest nor the subsequent transfer of custody to Barr violated clearly established law.

Smith v. Blodgett

798 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1992

Defendant moved to dismiss this Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the law was not clearly established that Washington’s administrative segregation regulations created a liberty interest protected … The court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Tolbert v. Queens College

164 F.3d 132 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 1999

the qualified immunity issue can[ ]not be resolved before trial. … the federal right allegedly infringed was “clearly established,” ....

Williams v. City of Montgomery

21 F. Supp. 2d 1360 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 16, 1998

However, the necessity for detailed pleadings is especially apparent in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether an individual defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. … Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Santamorena v.