Case law

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

Robert W. Fowler v. Armond Cross, Commissioner of Florida Parole Board

635 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 1981

Navarette, 434 U.S. at 562 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 , the Supreme Court said: 9 [T]he [qualified] immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established … The district court’s finding of qualified immunity is clearly erroneous and is reversed. III.

Dora Elizabeth Cook v. Gwinnett Co. School Dist.

414 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 29, 2005

clearly established.” … immunity because they violated clearly established law.

Durham v. Rapp

64 F. Supp. 3d 740 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 9, 2014

Qualified immunity turns on two inquiries: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of ■ a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Richard Burton v. Arkansas Secretary of State

737 F.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 17, 2013

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity "from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … DeKalb Cnty., 62 F.3d 338, 340 (11th Cir. 1995) (reversing denial of qualified immunity on equal-protection retaliation claim because there is "no clearly established right . . . under the equal protection clause to be free

Nagle v. Marron

663 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity 4 Although the statutory text of § 1983 provides for no immunities, it has been read “‘in 5 harmony with general principles of tort immunities’” to provide qualified immunity for most … Id.; see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 (“If the law did not put the officer on 7 notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified 8 immunity is appropriate.”). 9 The

Austin v. Johnson

328 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 2003

We have jurisdiction, because the court determined plaintiff's allegations made out the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the denial of qualified immunity did not rest on the sufficiency of evidence … This ignores the fact that the plaintiff has the burden to rebut a qualified immunity defense "by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law." Pierce v.

Jerald Davis v. William Owens

973 F.2d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

The parties, however, assert that this court reviews a district court’s denial of qualified immunity under the clearly erroneous standard enunciated in Hughes v. … Qualified Immunity Public officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Stanley v. Muzio

578 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 26, 2008

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages caused by the performance of discretionary official functions if their conduct does not violate a clearly established … If the court finds a potential violation, it next must determine whether, considering the facts of the case before it, that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. See Saucier v.

Michael Alexander v. Mark McKinney

692 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fleming v. … Claims of qualified immunity involve two questions: (1) whether the official’s con- duct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time. Surita v.

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

Kaminski v. Anderson

792 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right....

David Evans v. Patrick Baker

703 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right. See Harlow v. … To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v.

Terry L. Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler

829 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 1987

on the basis of qualified immunity. … When performing a discretionary function, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if, at the time of his conduct, it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate the plaintiffs constitutional

Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King, United States of America David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

established under current law. 6 Accordingly, Vecera, Bridges, Burnett, and King are entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Grant v. Davis

537 So. 2d 7 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Nov 23, 1988

This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v. … The duty to inspect the roads is an affirmative duty but one that also involves a type of discretion giving rise to qualified immunity.

Hudson v. Hudson

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

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … IV 9 * Having determined that qualified immunity is available to these officers, we next consider whether they are entitled to it. We engage in the well-established two-step inquiry specified in Saucier v.

Rodriguez-Oquendo v. Toledo-Davila

39 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 1999

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly—established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, we find that Defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Vanderklok v. United States

140 F. Supp. 3d 373 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2015

Even if the Individual Officers lacked probable cause to arrest Vanderklok, they would be protected by qualified immunity because they did not violate a right that was “clearly established.” … This is not so clearly established as to override the Individual Officers’ qualified immunity.

Currier Ex Rel. Estate of Juarez v. Doran

23 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 21, 1998

In addition, however, Gonzales and Robbins maintain they violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Discussion A. … When a qualified immunity defense is raised in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing the defendant violated clearly established law. Breidenbach v. Bolish, 126 F.3d 1288, 1291 (10th Cir.1997).