Case law

Mesa v. Prejean

543 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 2008

Because of that uncertainty, we must take the next sequential step in qualified immunity analysis and ask whether “a reasonably competent officer would not have known his actions violated then-existing clearly established … Tarazona “must show that the legality of her conduct was clearly established.” Id.

Doe v. Broderick

225 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 29, 2000

If so, we may proceed to determine whether Detective Broderick is entitled to qualified immunity or whether, because he ran afoul of clearly established constitutional rights, he is to be held personally accountable for his … Detective Broderick argues that he is protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in August 1998 that patients in drug treatment facilities had a legitimate expectation of privacy in their files

Baird v. Holton

806 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official from civil liability if his conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … See Ali, 2011 WL 2462851, at *4 (qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Duran v. City Of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: "[A] district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' … The legal issues involved in that appeal--whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections--are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar's qualified immunity.

Hunt v. City of Toledo Law Department

881 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 30, 2012

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two part test for determining the applicability of qualified immunity in § 1983 actions. … As a general rule, the default position is that qualified immunity applies.

Dustin Williamson v. Bryan Stirling

912 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 21, 2018

In making its qualified immunity rulings, the district court relied solely on the clearly established prong, deciding that Williamson’s due process rights were not clearly established, and thus awarded qualified immunity … If the law regarding the level of process owed to pretrial detainees was not clearly established as to either situation, Director Stirling and Sheriff Carroll would yet be entitled to qualified immunity on Williamson’s

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. … “clearly established” law.

Miesen v. State Department of Transportation

226 Wis. 2d 298 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 6, 1999

Because the DOT is a State agency, see §§ 15.01(5) and 15.46, Stats., Miesen's complaint cannot stand unless the legislature has expressly and clearly consented for the DOT to be sued, thus waiving its sovereign immunity. … According to the DOT, the legislature must clearly and expressly waive the State's sovereign immunity with respect to each type of claim that might be brought under § 109.03(5). We disagree.

Linbrugger v. Abercia

363 F.3d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

Qualified immunity protects public officers from suit if them conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … First, we must determine whether the facts, either as the plaintiff alleges or as proved without dispute, establish that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right. Price v.

Morales v. Chadbourne

996 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 12, 2014

established right in this regard, qualified immunity attaches to these defendants on the procedural due process claim. … These constitutional principles are axioms that are not questionable or in doubt; they are and have been “clearly established,” and thus the Federal Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Click v. Copeland

970 F.2d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1992

In the first part of Matherne, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity because the law was not clearly established in July 1983 that a sheriff could not retaliate … The crucial difference was the analytical framework established by McBee. Id. at 759, 760. The law of McBee was clearly established in January 1988.

Boyer v. County of Washington

971 F.2d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 10, 1992

Finally, DeClue asserts that notwithstanding any factual dispute, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires determination of probable cause before, … Likewise, because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” the denial of a claim of qualified immunity is also immediately appealable. Id. at 526-27 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815-16 .

Brown v. Lyford

243 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 2001

II To overcome the qualified immunity of government officials, Brown must show 1) a constitutional violation; 2) of a right clearly established at the time the violation occurred; and 3) that the defendant actually … So much is established for res judicata and the statute of limitations, two other affirmative defenses. . . . Defendants inform us that they want the benefit of qualified immunity.

Anderson v. City of Hopkins

805 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 28, 2011

Clearly Established Right The second step in determining if qualified immunity applies is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Thus, qualified immunity does not apply as to Kreiling. IV.

Webster v. Moquin

175 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 20, 2001

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that immunity does not apply. See Davis v. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendants bear the “burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of a clearly established right.” Tellier v. Fields, No. 98-2249, 2001 WL 457767, at *11 (2d Cir.

Israel Alicea Rosado v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Secretary of the Department of Social Services of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Gaddiel Morales Burgos v. Patria Custodio

813 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1987

Fair, 804 F.2d 164 (1st Cir.1986), the right at issue was one applicable to all persons, and the qualified immunity question therefore simply was whether it was clearly established that an individual had a right to be free … Thus, in asking the qualified immunity question, we must recognize the individual nature of the right allegedly violated and ask whether it was clearly established that someone in the particular position before us was entitled

Tennell v. Telthorster

84 S.W.3d 1 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 12, 2000

In this appeal from a summary judgment on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, we are asked to review whether appellee, Officer Mark Andrew Telthorster, established as a matter of law that he acted in good faith … In one point of error, the appellant argues the appellee is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because he failed to establish as a matter of law that he acted in good faith during the appellant’s

Howard v. Board of Education of Sycamore Community Unit School District No. 427

893 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 21, 1995

Qualified Immunity Weleker contends he is entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs section 1983 claim because there is no clearly established law that he had a duty to take action in response to the students’ allegedly … Absent allegations stating a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Id.

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.

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.