Case law

Marcavage v. National Park Service

666 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

The District Court then found that Saperstein and Crane were entitled to qualified immunity from both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment claims because Marcavage’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established … As noted above, to strip Saperstein and Crane of qualified immunity requires the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto

790 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, N.D. California · May 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity Doctrine 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 rights … The immunity inquiry, on the other hand, asks whether the right Plaintiff claims was clearly established. Id.

Stanley v. Cooper

996 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … But such actions did not so clearly violate Stanley’s rights that defendant Cooper should be deprived of the defense of qualified immunity.

Coker on Behalf of Coker v. Henry

813 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 1993

The question of qualified immunity generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … In asserting qualified immunity, defendants contend the asserted due process right was not clearly established at the time Craig Coker was abused.

Lamb v. City of Decatur

947 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 19, 1996

“It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rice v. Burks, 999 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1993). … The Decatur police do not qualify for immunity.

Anderson v. City of Bellevue

862 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2012

Qualified Immunity 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 rights of which … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Allah v. Juchenwioz

176 F. App'x 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2006

which the Court found to exist in its 1999 decision was not clearly established at the relevant time.” … “In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not

Better Government Bureau, Inc. v. McGraw

106 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997

We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes.”

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions

132 So. 3d 786 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 27, 2014

We also conclude that the ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161(1) because they are not clearly and conclusively defective. … This limited immunity is necessary because, in the absence of such immunity, the mere act of prescribing marijuana, a controlled substance under Florida law, would result in civil or criminal liability or sanctions, which

William C. Bennett, AKA John A. Richardson v. Garrison A. Parker, Warden, Robert M. Jackson, Officer, Daniel W. Cooper, Officer

898 F.2d 1530 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 25, 1990

Although intertwined with issues of jurisdiction and qualified immunity, this appeal concerns the severity of injury to an inmate required to establish a constitutional claim of excessive use of force. … The doctrine of qualified immunity accomplishes a similar purpose by shielding public officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Angela McCullough v. Ernest N. Finley, Jr.

907 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2018

The Mayor and the Chiefs Enjoy Qualified and State-Agent Immunity from the Jailees’ Complaint. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability unless the officials ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Baker v. Smiscik

49 F. Supp. 3d 489 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 24, 2014

Embody, 695 F.3d at 581 . *501 Plaintiff fails to meet the clearly-established-right prong for the qualified immunity analysis. … Neither of these sources provides a basis for finding a clearly established constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Barrett, 388 F.3d at 972.

Rhoades v. Clinkscale

Superior Court of Delaware · Jul 20, 2016

on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established, question of whether the purported right exists at without resolving the plied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the a>l?> all. … Thus, State Defendants argue that qualified immunity applies to Plaintiff’s claims against them, because Plaintiff has failed to identify a right to a particular procedure or protocol that has been clearly established by

Lanman v. Hinson

529 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from tort liability, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights viewed under the applicable constitutional standard

Denning v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

564 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 16, 2008

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised by the defendant, it becomes the plaintiffs burden to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Untalan v. … The second question in determining the applicability of qualified immunity — whether Denning had a clearly established constitutional right not to be fired upon — is therefore moot.

Nieves v. County of Monroe

761 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 25, 2011

Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Specifically, the doctrine applies where it is “objectively reasonable” for an official to believe that his conduct did not violate a plaintiffs constitutional rights, in light of clearly established law and in the information

Glenn W. Phelps, Jr. v. Robert M. Coy, Jr., Christin Stutes

286 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Coy’s qualified immunity motion. … A claim of qualified immunity presents two closely linked questions: whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs rights and whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo

279 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 19, 2003

Government officials are generally immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Gorman v. Rensselaer Cnty.

910 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 6, 2018

entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court held that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that Gorman's complaint constituted protected speech.

Searles v. Van Bebber

993 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 7, 1998

Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional or statutory norms. Anderson v. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law and the information which the possessed at the time of the alleged violation. Martin v.