Case law

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.

MOLINA-AVILES v. District of Columbia

824 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. … Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v.

Washington v. Fenty

611 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

were violated were not clearly established. … A defense of qualified immunity fails only if the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

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.

Simmons v. Fabian

743 N.W.2d 281 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 31, 2007

Qualified immunity, the most common variety, protects officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … By focusing on “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” the test for qualified immunity is intended both to avoid excessively disrupting government functioning

Austin v. Johnson

328 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 2003

We have jurisdiction, because the court determined plaintiff's allegations made out the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the denial of qualified immunity did not rest on the sufficiency of evidence … This ignores the fact that the plaintiff has the burden to rebut a qualified immunity defense "by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law." Pierce v.

Dora Elizabeth Cook v. Gwinnett Co. School Dist.

414 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 29, 2005

clearly established.” … immunity because they violated clearly established law.

Katherine Gardenhire and Walter Gardenhire v. Donald Schubert, in His Individual and Official Capacity as Chief of Police

205 F.3d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2000

The affirmative defense of qualified, or good faith, immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established … Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated and second, establish that a reasonable officer in the

Terry L. Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler

829 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 1987

on the basis of qualified immunity. … When performing a discretionary function, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if, at the time of his conduct, it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate the plaintiffs constitutional

Tenenbaum v. Williams

193 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 13, 1999

Government officials “enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was … Whatever van Emrik “clearly established” therefore could not have guided the behavior of the individual defendants here and they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the district court held. IV.

Mejia v. City of New York

119 F. Supp. 2d 232 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 5, 2000

Qualified Immunity The basic test for determining whether a public official is entitled to assert qualified immunity was established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … : qualified immunity shields public officials “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

Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King, United States of America David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

established under current law. 6 Accordingly, Vecera, Bridges, Burnett, and King are entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Sythe v. City of Eureka

78 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND FALSE ARREST Government officials performing their discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … ANALYSIS For this Court to find qualified immunity for the individual officers in the case at bar, it must reach two conclusions: First, that the law governing the officers’ conduct was clearly established; and second, under

Nagle v. Marron

663 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity 4 Although the statutory text of § 1983 provides for no immunities, it has been read “‘in 5 harmony with general principles of tort immunities’” to provide qualified immunity for most … Id.; see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 (“If the law did not put the officer on 7 notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified 8 immunity is appropriate.”). 9 The

Richard Burton v. Arkansas Secretary of State

737 F.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 17, 2013

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity "from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … DeKalb Cnty., 62 F.3d 338, 340 (11th Cir. 1995) (reversing denial of qualified immunity on equal-protection retaliation claim because there is "no clearly established right . . . under the equal protection clause to be free

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.

Fils v. City of Aventura

647 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2011

The court then revised its rulings on the Defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses. … But, where the officer’s conduct is so outrageous that it clearly goes “so far beyond” these borders, qualified immunity will not protect him *1292 even in the absence of case law. Reese v.

Kaminski v. Anderson

792 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right....

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.

Grune v. Rodriguez

176 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 26, 1999

Defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any "clearly established" rights of plaintiff. … DISCUSSION 14 Appellants argue on this appeal that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity because their actions did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which