Case law

Essalene Lambert v. City of Dumas

187 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 1999

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which the reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … The Appellee alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Oliver v. Smith

290 Mich. App. 678 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2010

The wrist and hand injury is not clearly attributable to defendant alone and instead may just as fairly be attributed to plaintiff. … The Odom Court stated that employees enjoy a qualified right to immunity if (1) the employee’s challenged acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he or she

Phillips v. Community Ins. Corp.

678 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 27, 2012

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken *528 was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … They argue that if the law had clearly established that use of an SL6 was unlawful, police departments would no longer retain the weapon in their arsenal. The defendants misconstrue the qualified immunity analysis.

Dorris v. City of McKinney

214 F. Supp. 3d 552 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 4, 2016

“A plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … “The law is clearly established that a public employee may be neither discharged nor demoted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment Rights.” Cox, 577 Fed.Appx. at 313 .

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).

Gorman v. Mississippi

258 F. Supp. 3d 761 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 11, 2017

right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”’” … immunity; the law was clearly established that “no reasonable officer could .have thought that this amount of force was legal under the circumstances,” even though there was no case directly on point.

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … immunity when probable cause is at issue is clearly erroneous and not de novo.

Brenes-Laroche v. Toledo Davila

682 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 26, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In conducting our qualified immunity analysis, we take the Plaintiffs facts as true for purposes of determining whether Defendants have violated his constitutional rights and whether the right at issue was clearly established

Dayna Lee v. David Russ

33 F.4th 860 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2022

The district court granted Russ qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects Russ unless (1) he violated Groom’s constitutional rights and (2) those rights were clearly established at the time. White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam).

Doe v. Aguilar

400 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2005

As noted above, plaintiffs have the burden to show that qualified immunity is unavailable here and to do so plaintiffs must show that the right which they allege defendant violated was clearly established in December 2001 … City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320 , 325 (5th Cir.1998): In reviewing a claim of qualified immunity, this Court must determine: ‘(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;

Melvin Taylor v. Edward Reilly, Jr.

685 F.3d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2012

or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … The Court has explained, for example, that although “the right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause,” that level of generality is too high for purposes of qualified immunity because

Marsilio v. Vigluicci

924 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 2013

Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of establishing that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 20, p. 6. … that was clearly established at the time in question.

Ziccardi v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 628 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

Federal courts have applied only a qualified immunity on behalf of Commonwealth officials in section 1983 claims. … Specifically, under the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Wood, the immunity defense would be unavailable to the secretary if the constitutional rights which he allegedly infringed were clearly established at

Garcia v. Webb County District Attorney

764 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 12, 1991

Thus absolute immunity is not a protection to Defendant Garcia in his role as an employer; at best, Defendant Garcia has only qualified immunity for his alleged misbehavior in the instant case. Qualified Immunity. … Defendant Garcia has not established entitlement to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, and he does not have absolute immunity.

Provencio v. Vazquez

258 F.R.D. 626 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2009

immunity because the violation was not “clearly established.” cf. … Turning to the two factors for qualified immunity identified in Saucier the court on this issue will first inquire into whether the right was “clearly established.”

Parker v. Gerrish

547 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 5, 2008

Though the motion did not refer to "qualified immunity" or to "clearly established law," Gerrish contends he adequately raised that issue. … Gerrish did not refer to "clearly established law" and made no effort to address his argument to qualified immunity.

VanHorn v. Nebraska State Racing Commission

304 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials from damage liability unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Hafley v.

Binkowski v. Family & Children's Services Agency

39 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1998

It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that the right to due process of law is “clearly established” under the Fourteenth Amendment. … However, qualified immunity applies only to individuals, not government entities. See, e.g., Leatherman v.

McCormack v. Livergood

353 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing "discretionary functions," are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ … were "clearly established" at the time of the incident.

Ricker v. Leapley

25 F.3d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We have concluded that both Leapley and Weber are entitled to qualified immunity because Ricker has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.