Case law

Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency

206 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2002

Alternatively, defendants contend that even if plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the removal and therefore Black is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if “(1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and (2) under that law, the official objectively could have believed that her conduct was lawful

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.

Brown v. City of Atlanta

284 F. Supp. 3d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 9, 2018

Thus, the court now considers whether those rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, because Brown has pointed to clearly established law that prohibits the alleged conduct, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment must be DENIED.

Muslim v. Frame

897 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1995

Whether the Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument is that summary judgment should be granted because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers from damages claims when their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Beck v. Wilson

377 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 29, 2004

violate clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen

761 F.3d 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 31, 2014

On appeal the estate argues that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because under clearly established law she committed sufficient affirmative acts to be liable for creating or increasing the danger to Brook … The estate has failed to show that Defendant’s behavior was a clearly established violation of Brook’s constitutional rights at the time it occurred. Defendant is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Jones v. PRAMSTALLER

678 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 22, 2009

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … Cabinet for Workforce Dev., 289 F.3d 958 , 964 (6th Cir.2002). 5 *629 This means that Jones cannot defeat the qualified-immunity defense with preAugust 28, 2007 precedent “clearly establishing” his general right to be free

Erin Bulfin v. Becky Rainwater

104 F.4th 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 17, 2024

immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established. … Bulfin also argues the district court erred in ruling that the individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not a clearly established right.

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.

639 So. 2d 730 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 5, 1994

immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent.” … Employing the former approach and tailoring the definition to fit the qualified immunity provision, courts have found that lack of malice or good faith can be proven by establishing a reasonable basis for the conduct.

Rodriguez v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

627 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2010

We have accepted interlocutory appeals under the collateral order doctrine where the issue is a sovereign’s absolute immunity from suit and where qualified immunity is at issue. See, e.g., Paine v. … Con- sistent with our prior decisions, we hold that the government contractor defense does not confer absolute or qualified immunity.

Essence Welch v. Daniel Dempsey

51 F.4th 809 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 20, 2022

In a footnote, the court noted that Dempsey’s motion made “a passing reference that ‘at minimum’ he is entitled to qualified immunity,” and concluded that the law was clearly established that retaliation for protected speech … In an interlocutory appeal raising a defense of qualified immunity, this court has jurisdiction to address only an order deciding a purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by a plaintiff show a violation of clearly

Evans v. Morgan

304 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 25, 2003

Defendant contends both that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for a violation of due process and that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established … Qualified Immunity Defendant contends that plaintiffs claim should be dismissed because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry.

Parrish v. Nikolits

86 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

Once a public official or employee defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the "plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights' allegedly violated were "clearly established.' " … Plaintiffs also contend that Nikolits is not entitled to qualified immunity, because the Elrod and Branti decisions clearly established the constitutional rule of law that Nikolits' actions violated.

Shane Bailey v. Don Feltmann

810 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 15, 2016

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have … Feltmann is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Noel Dean v. Darshan Phatak

911 F.3d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 2018

matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … Dean counters that the district court properly denied summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because Phatak created a false, misleading, and inaccurate autopsy report and violated Dean’s clearly-established constitutional

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).

Todd v. Montoya

877 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 24, 2012

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified-immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed-Immunity Analysis.

Newcomb v. City of Troy

719 F. Supp. 1408 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 1989

The “clearly established law” at the time Plaintiff was seized by Officer Denny permitted the application of deadly force in limited circumstances. … The claims against Officer Denny are dismissed above on the basis of qualified immunity under Anderson v. Creighton, supra.

Lee-Walker v. New York City Department of Education

712 F. App'x 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2017

We conclude that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … For these reasons we agree with the District Court’s dismissal of the claim against the individual- defendants on qualified immunity grounds.

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.