Case law

Adkins v. Rodriguez

59 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1995

Having raised the defense of qualified immunity, defendant then places the onus on the plaintiff to establish defendant has violated a clearly established law. Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir.1993). … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to a section 1983 action, providing immunity from suit from the outset, we have stated, "[t]he question of qualified immunity therefore dovetails almost precisely with

Pyne v. Meese

172 Cal. App. 3d 392 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1985

Under the Harlow test, Black and Hurd did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights and are thus immune from liability. … Once again, we must apply the Harlow test to determine whether a qualified immunity exists.

Tveraas v. Coffey

818 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 5, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from civil suits to government officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … To establish entitlement to such protection, a defendant must show that he has not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id.

Nathan Rice v. Reliastar Life Insurance Co.

770 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 2014

Qualified immunity is a two-prong analysis. … The Supreme Court has explained that the clearly established standard incorporates an objective reasonableness inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right

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.

L.R. v. School District

60 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2014

doctrine of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Carlin v. Manu

72 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 1999

established” one which would foreclose the defendants from qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Fore v. Circuit Court of Izard County

292 Ark. 13 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 20, 1987

undisputed and the writ is clearly warranted. … Beaumont, 291 Ark. 477 , 725 S.W.2d 839 (1987), that the defense of qualified immunity presents an exception to this rule. The present defense is based upon a claim of statutory immunity.

Russell v. Coughlin

910 F.2d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 2, 1990

On the eve of trial, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that because Russell had no clearly established liberty interest in remaining out of keeplock they were protected by qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official "if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights."

Klein v. Madison

374 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2019

Qualified Immunity: Excessive Force & Unlawful Search The defendants have asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as to the plaintiff's section 1983 claims for excessive force and unlawful search. … The Officers have qualified immunity if their conduct "does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v.

Glenn v. City of Tyler

242 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 22, 2001

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional … established law.”

Warren v. Coffee County Commission

942 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Qualified immunity is appropriate on the excessive force claim. B.

Pham v. University of Louisiana at Monroe

194 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 13, 2016

On the other hand, the clearly established prong does not necessarily require a case- “directly on point.” See Morgan v. … Jackson is entitled to qualified immunity. 2.Dr. El Sayed Dr. El Sayed is also entitled to qualified immunity.

C.B. v. Sonora School District

691 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 22, 2009

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity serves to shield government 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

Gubitosi v. Kapica

154 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 19, 1998

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)), and proceed to consider whether the qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 4 Here the gravamen of Kapica's qualified immunity … As a result, his qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 13 (2) Accordingly, we vacate so much of the district court's order of May 9, 1997 as denied Kapica's motion for summary judgment based on qualified

Marilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, Roland Neil Meyers, and City of Wichita, Scott Redpath, Special Agent, Marilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, City of Wichita, Roland Neil Meyers, and Scott Redpath, Special Agent

76 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 1996

If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant's conduct that violated clearly established law. Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535 . … Compare Elder, 114 S.Ct. at 1021 ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.") with Graham, 490 U.S. at

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.

Lincoln v. Barnes

855 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2017

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry looks to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Jaglowicz v. Bethel Township

178 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity Chief Worrilow and the five township supervisors invoke qualified immunity. Ja-glowicz having conceded that Worrilow has no liability, we consider qualified immunity for the five township supervisors. … In other words, if we find that the alleged right was not clearly established, the inquiry ends and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

McDermott v. Town of Windham

204 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Maine · May 31, 2002

Defendant Cox: Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has held that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Under qualified immunity, “Public officials who stand accused of civil rights violations under section 1983 nonetheless can-avoid liability... by showing either that they did not violate a right clearly established under