Case law

Gennusa v. Shoar

879 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 17, 2012

Defendants further assert that, even if the recording violated plaintiffs’ rights, qualified immunity applies because those rights were not clearly established. … Moreover, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.

Rossignol v. Voorhaar

321 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2004

to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 4 Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Dean v. Thomas

933 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 1, 1996

However, this “qualified immunity” is defeated if the defendant official took the complained-of action “with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of rights,” or the official violated clearly established statutory … Officials are not ordinarily entitled to the protection of qualified immunity if clearly established constitutional rights have been violated.

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

455 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

We conclude that the district court erred in denying Edwards qualified immunity because the Firefighters did not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; that is, even if Edwards’s failure to remedy … Qualified immunity under section 1983 shields a state or local official from personal liability unless his action violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have

Meyer v. Woodward

617 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 9, 2008

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Woodward is not entitled to qualified immunity because of two clearly established rights. First, Plaintiff argues that he has a clearly established right to refuse medical treatment. … Defendants Woodward and Carter also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not of a “clearly established right.”

Nicol v. Auburn-Washburn USD 437

231 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … Ordinarily, for a law to be clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision" on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff

Stewart v. City of Prairie Village

904 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 17, 2012

immunity, Plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established. 23 The Court “cannot find qualified immunity wherever we have a new fact pattern.” 24 The Tenth Circuit has “shifted the qualified immunity analysis from … A plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right for each defendant in a § 1983 suit who claims qualified immunity; 47 § 1983 does not give a plaintiff a right of action against an individual

Bernstein v. Lopez

321 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

We hold that no further facts need to be determined and that as a matter of law the defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs have no clearly established right to continue in their administrative … This property interest, they maintain, was “clearly established.”

Potter v. Board of Regents

Nebraska Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2014

. § 20-148 (Reissue 2012) and that the managers are protected by qualified sovereign immunity because the alleged violation was not clearly established. … As to Bockstadter and Losee, the court found that the constitu- tional right allegedly violated had not been clearly established and that thus, the claim was barred by qualified immunity.

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

Batyukova v. Doege

994 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2021

We AFFIRM the grant of qualified immunity and summary judgment. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct either did not violate a federal right of the plaintiff or that right was not clearly established at the time of the relevant events.

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

422 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2011

Thus, the application of traditional or well-established immunities from suit has been held not to violate Article 19. See, e.g., Rios v. … Preliminarily, it should be noted that the immunity granted to defendants by §§ 6-828, 6-835, 6-836, and 6-836.1 of the Act is not, in any respect, a traditional or well-established *381 immunity from personal injury actions

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.

Chavez-Rodriguez v. City of Santa Fe

616 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2009

It is not clear from the briefing whether the Defendants are moving on an absence-of-evidence issue in. their qualified-immunity motion apart from whether the legal principles about causation are clearly established. … The question under the clearly established law step of qualified immunity is whether the “right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

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."

Michelle Mammaro v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution. … In this case, there was no such clearly established law, and qualified immunity covers the Division’s caseworkers.

Narducci v. Village of Bellwood

444 F. Supp. 2d 924 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2006

If such a violation has taken place, the court must determine whether that right was “clearly established” (id). … Clearly Established Law Once a constitutional violation has been identified, the dispositive question for a qualified immunity defense is whether the law was “clearly established” when the official acted, such that a reasonable

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

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.

Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

440 Md. 573 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2014

Although the Health Care Providers would not qualify for immunity under subsection (a), the General Assembly clearly included them when drafting subsections (b) and (c). … That the General Assembly referred to all of Part III, including these restrictions on admittance, when establishing the prerequisites to qualifying for immunity, demonstrates its intent that the immunity extend beyond