Case law

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman , 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Cummins v. Campbell

44 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 1994

We hold that the Regents were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional law they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time they briefly suspended authority to show the film. … However, the district court agreed with Appellees that the law Appellees allegedly violated was not clearly established and granted them summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A.

Natasha Thomas Susan Gibbs and Edwina Lewis v. Ann Cohen Glenn Craig James Embry and Susan Fischer, in Their Individual Capacities

304 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2002

a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity We must also decide whether, in light of clearly established law applicable on the date of the eviction, a reasonable officer would have believed that Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth

Cillo v. City of Greenwood Village

739 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 31, 2013

“‘The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials . . . from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.’” Gann v. … Clearly established right We also hold that the individual defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on the second requirement for § 1983 qualified immunity because Sgt.

Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc.

996 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 26, 1998

Government officials performing administrative or executive functions have qualified immunity from suit under civil rights statutes if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendants violated a law that was clearly established.” Norton v.

Washpon v. Parr

561 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2008

unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … If it was not reasonable, then for purposes of determining qualified immunity we next ask the purely legal question of whether the law was sufficiently established that a reasonable officer would know his conduct was unlawful

Lenzer v. Flaherty

106 N.C. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1992

immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful under existing precedent. … In general, qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

Gaubert v. Gray

747 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1990

Violations of “Clearly Established” Rights In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.”

Ngo v. Storlie

495 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2007

actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Here, we must ask whether Ngo’s right to be free from excessive force is clearly established.

Hoyer v. DiCocco

457 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 22, 2006

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did *116 not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in … Was the Violation Contrary to Clearly Established Law?

Nichols v. City of Jackson

848 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 31, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that Chief Donovan and Assistant Chief Graham are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have been aware. Harlow v.

Womack v. Bradshaw

49 F. Supp. 3d 624 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 10, 2014

An officer is “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to inquire whether the “right that was violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Dwayne Andrews v. Keith Schafer

888 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Estate of David E. Morgan, Jr. v. John Cook

686 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 10, 2012

-3-  “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity requires a “two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9203, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1350, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,215, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2025 James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, and Robert G. Bailor Denise E. Coker Monte E. Gaunt Donald E. Johnson Richard J. Poole Nicolis E. Stanley Michael F. Yates, James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, and City of Spokane Robert Allen Earl L. Ennis Lawrence R. Freeman Clifford Harding Kenneth R. Krogh Larry M. Lindskog Jack E. Neumiller Andrew J. Pavlischak Sheldon Reeve, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and Robert G. Bailor Denise E. Coker Monte E. Gaunt Donald E. Johnson Richard J. Poole Nicolis E. Stanley Michael F. Yates, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and City of Spokane Robert Allen Earl L. Ennis Lawrence R. Freeman Clifford Harding Kenneth R. Krogh Larry M. Lindskog Jack E. Neumiller Andrew J. Pavlischak Sheldon Reeve, Gypsy Church of the Northwest, and Grover Marks v. Detective Rick Grabenstein

102 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 1997

Once again, under the clearly established law of Ybarra v. … inspection at that location did not violate clearly established law.

Heather Kerchen v. Univ. of Mich.

100 F.4th 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2024

Qualified immunity immunizes government officials from suit to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Although qualified immunity may generally be better resolved on a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must still sufficiently plead facts to show a clearly established constitutional violation

Padilla Roman v. Hernandez Perez

381 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 2005

Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 53 (1st Cir.1997). 4 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions *27 from civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly … A qualified immunity defense requires a three-part analysis: “The first inquiry is whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiffs was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Paul v. City of Rochester

452 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2006

City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (6th Cir.2005) (defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it had not been clearly established that tackling plaintiff under the circumstances constituted excessive force); Soares … The City did not raise qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. 8 .

Almond v. Tarver

468 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 15, 2006

A defendant "is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct." Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-pronged inquiry: "The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Carr v. Tatangelo

338 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2003

Under qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … and, if so, whether they had “fair warning” under clearly established law that their conduct was unconstitutional.