Case law

Ruffin v. Nicely

183 F. App'x 505 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2006

The burden of proving that the right was clearly established “rests squarely on the plaintiff,” Cope v. … On appeal, Ruffin has not adequately challenged the district court’s holding that any rights violated were not clearly established. Ruffin only “submits that this was a clearly established Constitutional right.”

Perry, Peary v. the City of Houston and George Greanias

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 23, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

Rafael L. Balaguer-Santiago v. Hon. Jaime Torres-Gaztambide, Etc.

932 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 14, 1991

The defendants, upper-level RHA officials, filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, see Harlow v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields certain public officials from personal liability for damages awarded in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , except where the challenged official conduct violated a “clearly established

Kent v. Katz

146 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 11, 2001

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from claims brought under federal law if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Moreover, Katz is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Eric Thurairajah v. Trooper Lagarian Cross

3 F.4th 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

-4- Specifically, he asserts that, under Arkansas law, “malice” is equated with the “clearly established” prong of federal qualified immunity and that no analysis of Trooper Cross … established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Curtis v. Breathitt Cnty. Fiscal Court

288 F. Supp. 3d 789 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2018

Qualified Immunity for Stevens and Smith "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, Stevens is entitled to qualified immunity on all of Curtis's state law claims. 4.

Mobley v. City of Detroit

938 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 4, 2012

Finally, they argue that the officers had probable cause to arrest, prosecute and seize vehicles, and that qualified immunity shields them because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. City of Chicago

883 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 16, 1994

Qualified Immunity Dr. Bransfield moves to dismiss the Section 504 claim against him on grounds of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Gardner v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS, FOR KANSAS CITY

641 F.3d 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 9, 2011

Ritchie is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Gardner, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at … The court further concluded that at the time of the shooting, the law was clearly established on this point, and that Ritchie was thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

Parker v. Board of Regents of the Tulsa Junior College

981 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 1992

Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” … facts are in dispute which would defeat the claim of qualified immunity.

Bobby Lee Griffin v. George A. Lombardi Dick D. Moore Jim M. Jones Nikki Nicks Terry Barnes James A. Gammon

946 F.2d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 25, 1991

Summary judgment should be granted on qualified immunity grounds “if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendant in fact ... violated clearly established law.” … Even though the law concerning a prisoner’s right to receive mail is clearly established, the officials may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officials reasonably could have believed that their conduct did not

Andrews v. Ring

266 Va. 311 · Supreme Court of Virginia · Sep 12, 2003

The undisputed facts subject to proper consideration by the trial court upon motions for summary judgment on this issue clearly establish that Andrews and Cox seek damages for injury to personal reputation and employment … Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Ring maintains that if he is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, he is, nonetheless, entitled to the same qualified immunity extended to police officers for actions taken

Brandt v. Monte

626 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2009

Clearly Established Violation Having found that Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, the Court now turns to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, namely, whether the right violated was clearly established … whether the rights violated were clearly established.

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUN. v. Romer

921 P.2d 84 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

clearly established statutory or *90 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … What is "clearly established law" is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use "its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents."

Marsilio v. Vigluicci

924 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 2013

Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of establishing that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 20, p. 6. … that was clearly established at the time in question.

Statchen v. Palmer, et al.

2009 DNH 137 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 15, 2009

Even if the force used fell into the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force, Scott and Palmer would be entitled to qualified immunity. The cell incident is less clearly defined. … The statute also echoes the standard for qualified immunity.

Anderson v. Recore

317 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 2003

The judge’s qualified immunity determination followed from his conclusion that Sandin v. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

Nicholson v. Kent County Sheriff's Department

839 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 29, 1993

raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law. … However, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to this use of the taser as well because its use did not violate clearly established law.

Phillips v. Community Ins. Corp.

678 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 27, 2012

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken *528 was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … They argue that if the law had clearly established that use of an SL6 was unlawful, police departments would no longer retain the weapon in their arsenal. The defendants misconstrue the qualified immunity analysis.

Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency

206 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2002

Alternatively, defendants contend that even if plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the removal and therefore Black is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if “(1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and (2) under that law, the official objectively could have believed that her conduct was lawful