Case law

Bator v. Hawaii

39 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

Qualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free of sexual harassment was not clearly established during the period of Bator’s employment.

Pfeil v. Lampert

11 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 31, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law, without resolving

Fred Arispe Cruz, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. George Beto and W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellees

603 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1979

Although at the time of this trial the qualified immunity defense had not yet been established in such cases, it is now settled that Beto’s exposure to liability for damages under section 1983 is limited by the qualified … Under the first part, persons clothed with this qualified shield lose its protection if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or

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

Kaczorowski v. Town of North Smithfield

974 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 1, 2013

) if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.” … Kaczorowski’s claimed right to employment was clearly established. However, even an affirmative answer to that question may still not be enough to overcome qualified immunity. The First Circuit in Diaz-Bigio v.

Rodriguez v. WOLBACH

499 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2007

However, if a constitutional violation is *488 proven, “the next ... step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 92 Qualified immunity applies unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional … his conduct was unlawful.’ ” 115 If an official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, that official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Wolgemuth

257 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 2003

established and that the Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … established right, qualified immunity cannot attach on summary judgment. 882 F.2d at 215-16 .

Rockefeller v. United States Court of Appeals Office, for the Tenth Circuit Judges

248 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2003

The Supreme Court has established two avenues by which public officials may receive immunity from personal liability in a civil action for damages: absolute and qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function receives qualified immunity in a civil action, provided that his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights” of which

White v. Gerardot

509 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 5, 2007

It is well established, of course, that a denial of qualified immunity is only appealable “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 . … Detective Gerardot claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate Ford’s constitutional rights and, in any event, those rights were not clearly established at the time of

Adewale v. Whalen

21 F. Supp. 2d 1006 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 7, 1998

A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate “clearly established” constitutional or statutory rights of “which a reasonable person would have … cause is the clearly established standard for making an arrest.

Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hospital

170 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 22, 2001

When qualified immunity is raised in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing that the defendant violated clearly established law. … right was clearly established.”

Osipova v. Dinkins

864 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, Martinez is only entitled to qualified immunity if, assuming the facts as set forth by the plaintiff, it was objectively reasonable for Martinez to believe, in light of clearly established law and the information he

Copsey v. Swearingen

762 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 23, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert qualified immunity. … Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.

Brown v. McElroy

160 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 2001

It is well-established that qualified immunity acts to shield government officials from liability under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … their actions did not violate a clearly established right.

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

Alicia Street v. Gerald Leyshock

41 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

We conclude that the allegations in this case are insufficient to establish a plausible claim that the defendant officers violated any plaintiff’s clearly established right against the use of excessive force. … doctrine means that they did not violate a clearly established right.

Flanagan v. Anne Arundel County

593 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2009

A motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity must be granted unless plaintiffs state plausible facts that the defendants violated their clearly established federal rights. McKenna v. … A court should approach qualified immunity in three stages: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, and (3), if so, then whether a

Wilkinson v. Torres

610 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2010

However, an officer using deadly force is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the law was clearly established that the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. See Brosseau v. … The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two parts: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly

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

David Gavitt v. Bruce Born

835 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … To the extent due process could be deemed to include such an obligation, it is not yet a matter of clearly established law and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.