Case law

Susan Lynn Roberts v. Charles Timothy Kling

144 F.3d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 20, 1998

“First, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; second, the plaintiff must show the right the defendant’s conduct violated was clearly established such that a reasonable … Roberts attempts to cast this determination as factual and also seeks to demonstrate factual disputes on point; however, we agree with the district court that Roberts has not demonstrated that Kling violated clearly established

Breuder v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 502

888 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 unless they transgress clearly established law. See, e.g., Kisela v. … The members who refused even to listen to him violated his clearly established rights.

Beckinger v. TOWNSHIP OF ELIZABETH

697 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2010

A broad and generalized declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. … The relevant conduct in Reilly occurred prior to Garcetti at a time when the right was clearly established.

Thomas v. Holt

221 Ga. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 9, 1996

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established … For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

New York State National Organization for Women v. Cuomo

14 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 1998

Although violation of state rules or regulations may inform the court’s analysis of a qualified immunity defense, the defense may only be defeated by the court’s determination that the official violated “clearly established … The court must look to Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent in evaluating whether the law relevant to the constitutional issues raised here is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. See Elder v.

Delgado v. City of New York

86 A.D.3d 502 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 28, 2011

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer involved to believe that his or her conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers

Whisman v. Rinehart

119 F.3d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

Qualified Immunity 17 Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Id. 21 We take a broad view of what constitutes "clearly established" under the qualified immunity analysis. Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir.1994).

Braswell v. McCamman

256 F. Supp. 3d 719 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 21, 2017

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating both that the challenged conduct violates a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was so clearly established at … However, “to satisfy the second prong of the [qualified-immunity] .standard, plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established in a ‘particularized sense,’ such that a reasonable officer confronted with the same

James P. Martin v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, Wray Anderson, Mitchell Salloum, Edward Reid, and Myrtis Franke

86 F.3d 1391 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 1996

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the order denying qualified immunity was collateral order immediately appealable under Cohen . … A second major conception animating all of the immunity doctrines is that “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served

Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell

981 F.2d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 15, 1992

Qualified Immunity Claim “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Nguyen v. Grain Valley R-5 School District

353 S.W.3d 725 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2011

Where an affirmative defense is asserted in a motion to dismiss, a trial court may dismiss the petition only if the petition clearly establishes “on its face and without exception” that the defense applies and the claim is … But a “departmentally-mandated duty” may clearly arise from sources other than statutes or regulations.

Pierce v. Smith

117 F.3d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

For example, where the complained of conduct is a law enforcement warrantless search of a residence, qualified immunity turns not only on whether it was then clearly established that such a search required probable cause … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991), the Court stated that in a qualified immunity case, “the first inquiry” is whether the plaintiff has “failed to allege the violation of a clearly established

Cruz v. Green

352 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 7, 2019

DISCUSSION Captain Green argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she acted within the scope of her official duties and did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … See Callahan , 555 U.S. at 241 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (permitting district courts to evaluate whether § 1983 defendants violated clearly established law as the initial step in a qualified immunity analysis).

Hart v. O'Brien

127 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1997

Generally speaking, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a “clearly established- [federal] statutory or constitutional … One important difference, however, is that official immunity does not incorporate the requirement that the plaintiff show the violation of a clearly established right.

Victor R. Rodriguez-Burgos v. Electric Energy Authority

853 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

We address the qualified immunity question first. II. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The defendants were thus entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s damages claims since the plaintiff held the type of upper-level management or administrative post that was not clearly protected against patronage

Hagemeier v. Block

806 F.2d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 26, 1986

Qualified Immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

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

Doran by and Through Doran v. Condon

5 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 26, 1998

Qualified immunity is a question of law. … Thus, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. B. Count II S.

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.