Case law

Muhammad v. Close

798 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 8, 2011

Qualified immunity The defendant first raised the issue of qualified immunity in its supplemental brief in this Court after the latest remand. In English v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when them conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Clay v. Woodbury County

982 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 6, 2013

Clay’s reliance on a “generalized right” to be free from an unreasonable search is not sufficient to “clearly establish” the specific right on which her claim hangs for purposes of “qualified immunity.” … Turning to the second prong of the “qualified immunity” analysis, whether the right was “clearly established,” see Burton, 731 F.3d at 791-92 , the decisions in Hicks v.

Burgos-Yantin v. Municipality of Juana Díaz

669 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 6, 2009

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing “discretionary functions from ... civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “[A] defendant who claims qualified immunity must do so either [1] on the theory that the asserted right is not clearly established or [2] on the theory that the conduct attributed to him satisfies the test of objective legal

Hufford v. McEnaney

249 F.3d 1142 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 22, 2001

On interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on a claim of qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction over the purely legal question of whether Hufford has established a claim supported by clearly established law … Hufford, as the party seeking to deprive the defendants of qualified immunity, bears the burden of proving that the rights he claims were “clearly established” at the time they were allegedly violated.

Baar v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

666 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 27, 2009

In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law. … Because Plaintiff's right to attend the LACA meetings was not clearly established at the time of Jury's reprimand, all of the individual defendants should be entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claim. V.

Keith K. Stevens v. Scott Rose, Esq. Kenny Moore County of Lander, and Troy Hanson

298 F.3d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

Establishing qualified immunity requires that the official’s conduct be objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Hanson’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. 1 .

Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police(075926)

227 N.J. 482 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 2017

Defendant also stresses that sovereign immunity is a well-established defense to ADA claims in federal courts, and that plaintiff could have pursued both the LAD and ADA claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations … Burdette Tomlin Mem’l Hosp., 438 F.3d 240, 246, n.12 (3d Cir. 2006)). 5 *500 To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) “qualifies as an individual with a disability

Jon Holland v. Martin Simmerman

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2026

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome dismissal based on qualified immunity, “the plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of

Rivera-Ramos v. Roman

156 F.3d 276 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 29, 1998

Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil damage liability under section 1983, insofar as their conduct does not idolate “clearly established” rights of which “a reasonable person would have known” at the time … In sum, we conclude that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity rested upon a mistakenly abstract view of what is clearly established law and that the case must be remanded for further consideration of the qualified

Estate of Davis Ex Rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills

406 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 2005

from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”17 Qualified immunity is … violated clearly established law.

Alan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)

Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory, Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory

349 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

As discussed below, accepting the facts as the district court 2 viewed them in denying qualified immunity, the police officers violated clearly established federal law. … official's conduct did not violate clearly established law."

Rapkin v. Rocque

228 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 22, 2002

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *146 would have known.” … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Kathleen Benison v. George Ross

765 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2014

qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established at the time the lawsuit was filed. 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not … Therefore, if a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing: (1) “a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the]

Zapach v. Dismuke

134 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2001

The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Richard E. Finlan (And Don Venable - Dismissed) v. Dallas Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 24, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from liability under Section 1983 for civil damages if A their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It did not address the first inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis; that is, it did not address the question of law whether the law was clearly established in 1992 that the filing of a civil suit, alleged to be malicious

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.

Braham v. Newbould

Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 6, 2015

‘‘Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … ‘‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’’ Brooks v. Sweeney, supra, 299 Conn. 217.

David K. Huskey v. City of San Jose Joan Gallo George Rios Ralph Greene

204 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2000

immunity because the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … immunity because those rights were not clearly established.

Estate of Massey ex rel. Co-Administrators of her Estate Hodges v. City of Philadelphia

118 F. Supp. 3d 679 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2015

Because the Third Circuit has clearly held that the burden of pleading the defense of qualified immunity falls on the defendant, Defendants have not yet met their burden to sufficiently plead qualified immunity, and Plaintiff … ’s conduct allegedly violated were clearly established.”).