Case law

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.”).

Johnson v. Utah Department of Transportation

547 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 · Utah Supreme Court · Mar 10, 2006

However, discretionary immunity clearly was not designed to cloak the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity in modern garb.”). … Rather, we reaffirm prior case law that such studies substantially help the government establish that immunity is warranted under the discretionary function exception.

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.

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).

Porter Ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Ascension Parish School Board

301 F. Supp. 2d 576 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jan 21, 2004

Whether Conrad Braud is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity Qualified-immunity protects officials from section 1983 liability provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, the Court finds that Braud is entitled to qualified immunity even if Adam’s rights were found to be clearly established. 126 2.

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

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

Hodgson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

963 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 30, 1997

The Defendants, however, insist that this claim be dismissed on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. 13 Government officials may raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to actions … Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ).

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.

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.

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

Patricia McCardle Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Jonathan Haddad, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

131 F.3d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 21, 1997

Qualified Immunity Haddad’s “alternative! … Qualified immunity, which shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.

Calderón-Garnier v. Sánchez-Ramos

439 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2006

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct at issue.

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

US ex rel. Citynet, LLC v. Jimmy Gianato

962 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 22, 2020

actions had violated a clearly established right. … Thus, the state of mind required to establish liability under the FCA is also sufficient to preclude immunity protection, and therefore immunity cannot protect a public official from a suit alleging a claim under the FCA

Cofield v. Randolph County Commission

844 F. Supp. 1499 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1994

A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages as long as the official could reasonably believe that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. … Because qualified immunity is rarely established upon a motion to dismiss and because insufficient information is contained in the complaint to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the court finds that

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

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.

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.