Case law

Rodney Brossart v. Kelly Janke

859 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2017

” violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment *624 rights. 4 Qualified immunity shields officers from civil damage liability for discretionary acts when “[their] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … He asserts that our decision affirming the denial of qualified immunity in Shekleton v. Eichenberger, 677 F.3d 361 (8th Cir. 2012), clearly established that Braathan’s conduct was unconstitutional. We disagree.

West v. City of Parsons

983 F. Supp. 1027 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 31, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants Dunning, Gofourth, Rask, and Steenrod all claim qualified immunity as to plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims resulting from the search of his apartment. … Further, Gofourth and Steenrod claim qualified immunity as to plaintiffs excessive force claims.

Shoup v. Doyle

974 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2013

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 statutory … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) and stating that “once the [defendants] raise qualified immunity, Jackson must plead the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”)).

Wesby v. District of Columbia

765 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 2014

“An officer is entitled to qualified immunity, despite having engaged in constitutionally deficient conduct, if, in doing so, she did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the common-law privilege Defendants invoke overlaps with but is harder to establish than qualified immunity, the Defendants’ argument on that score “fails for essentially the same reasons already set forth.”

Hamilton v. Leavy

322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton’s right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Walter v. Pike County, Pennsylvania

465 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006

If the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … See, e.g., Smith, 318 F.3d at 510 (finding that the state-created danger doctrine was clearly established by the year 1999).

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.

Tanner v. San Juan County Sheriff's Office

864 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 21, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … Qualified immunity shifts the burden to the plaintiff to establish that the officer violated clearly established law.

Bah v. City of N.Y.

319 F. Supp. 3d 698 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 21, 2018

Nevertheless, he is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. … On qualified immunity, the officer's actions are assessed in view of the clearly established law at the time the officer acted. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 244, 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

Castle v. Appalachian Technical College

631 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacity from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Jackson v. City Of Bremerton

268 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects &#167 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). 12 In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light

Matter of Public Law No. 154-1990

561 N.E.2d 791 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1990

The immunity provisions of the Attorney Trust Account Act clearly and literally attempt to exercise by limitation the attorney disciplinary function of the judicial department. … Apart from the attorney discipline immunity provisions, the Attorney Trust Account Act establishes a fund to receive proceeds from interest generated from attorney trust accounts and a board to establish procedures and oversee

Dobson v. Harris

352 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2000

App. 660 , 233 S.E.2d 624 (1977) (summary judgment appropriately entered against the plaintiff where the defendant supported motion by establishing affirmative defense of qualified privilege, and the plaintiff, who thereafter … In her answer defendant Harris asserted the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity,” or, more precisely, a statutory, good-faith immunity based upon her compliance with N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-543 and -550.

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 .

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

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.

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

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.

Murphy v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc.

76 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1999

qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Having determined that qualified immunity is generally available to the Board Defendants, it remains to determine whether their assertion of it satisfies the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court