Case law

Kovats v. Rutgers, The State University

822 F.2d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1987

The Rutgers officials concede that were it clearly established that Rutgers’ regulations provide for de facto tenure by length of service, they would not be entitled to qualified immunity because Perry and Roth established … The court found that Varma’s claim implicated this clearly established law and, for that reason, denied Rutgers’ motion for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.

Jeffrey Moldowan v. Maureen Fournier

570 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Claims Generally speaking, the rationale underlying the qualified immunity doctrine is that, “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not … qualified immunity.

Isengard v. New Mexico Public Education Department

708 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Radecki v. Barela

146 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 24, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability in a section 1983 action unless the officials violated clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir. 1992), clearly established that Deputy Barela’s conduct was unconstitutional. Thus, the district court again denied qualified immunity to Deputy Barela.

Todd v. Montoya

877 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 24, 2012

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified-immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed-Immunity Analysis.

Catrina Johnson v. City of Minneapolis

901 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

We first turn to the question of qualified immunity. … -11- so the district court did not address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test.

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

882 F.2d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 1989

Bradford Area School Dist., 667 F.Supp. 1088, 1098 (W.D.Pa.1987). *723 On appeal, defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had no clearly established duty to protect Stoneking, and therefore … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Johnson v. Perry

140 F. Supp. 3d 222 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 21, 2015

clearly established at the time of the defendants’ acts in question.” … The qualified immunity analysis involves relating the legal standard of conduct to the facts established by the evidence in the case at hand.

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.

Burdette v. Panola County ex rel. Darby

53 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 20, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from suit based on the performance of discretionary functions if the official’s acts did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law … If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. A.

Robinson v. Cook

863 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2012

“[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009). … Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established The defendants argue that even if Mario’s constitutional rights were violated, they are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established

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."

Ecclesiastical Washington v. Larry Denney

900 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2018

The officials appeal, arguing that (1) Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth Amendment rights and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity; and … Discussion The corrections officials appeal, arguing that (1) they are entitled to qualified immunity because Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth

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.

Kevin Richardson v. Donald Selsky, Clement Capuano, William Fenton, Bernard Lonczak

5 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 22, 1993

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. See Harlow v. … In Rejecting the officer’s qualified immunity defense, we concluded that an “inmate’s right not to be adjudicated guilty without some evidence to support that finding was clearly established by 1988, when the hearing occurred

Johnson-El v. Schoemehl

878 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1989

of clearly established law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a clearly established right, the contours of which are sufficiently clear that

Harvey v. Montgomery County

881 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2012

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Deputies’ actions were simply not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Therefore, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference to medical care claim.

Rayfield v. Grand Rapids, City of

373 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 17, 2018

If either factor is not satisfied, qualified immunity shields the officer from damages. … . *970 In sum, "[t]o survive [a] motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that 'plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly

Jones v. PRAMSTALLER

678 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 22, 2009

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … Cabinet for Workforce Dev., 289 F.3d 958 , 964 (6th Cir.2002). 5 *629 This means that Jones cannot defeat the qualified-immunity defense with preAugust 28, 2007 precedent “clearly establishing” his general right to be free

Mara v. Rilling

921 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 2019

But  even  if  the  answer  is  yes,  or  not  definitively  no,  a  defendant  may  still  be  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  if  the  right  was  not  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  his  challenged actions … The district court still needed to address the second qualified  immunity  inquiry,  i.e.,  whether  the  rights  at  issue  were  clearly  established  in  the  context  presented,  such  that  every  reasonable  officer